Slashdot Mirror
Portland City Council May Ask FCC To Investigate Health Risks of 5G Networks (inverse.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: Fearing unknown health risks, members of the City Council in Portland, Oregon, will vote Wednesday to oppose the rollout of 5G wireless networks. In a proposed resolution, Mayor Ted Wheeler, along with Commissioners Chloe Eudaly and Amanda Fritz, write that there's evidence suggesting wireless networks can cause health problems -- including cancer. They express concern that the Federal Communications Commission has not conducted enough research to demonstrate that 5G networks are safe, while at the same time prohibiting state and local governments from passing their own regulations on telecommunications technology. And while Wheeler, Eudaly, and Fritz are correct about the FCC's power to dictate how state and local governments manage wireless networks, the connection between 5G networks and cancer is a lot more complicated than they say it is.
"There is evidence to suggest that exposure to radio frequency emissions generated by wireless technologies could contribute to adverse health conditions such as cancer," reads the proposed resolution. This evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The final results of this study, published in November 2018, showed a strong association between the type of radiation used for mobile phone signals and certain types of cancerous tumors in lab rats. But that's where the situation gets tough. The NTP study, which took place over 10 years and involved exposing more than 7,000 rats and mice to radio-frequency radiation, focused on signals used by wireless technology under the 2G and 3G standards. It's nearly impossible to say whether these results will apply to 5G hardware.
"Since the available research doesn't address 5G, the Portland City Council's resolution demands that the FCC embark on another such research project to assess the health effects of 5G," reports Inverse. "Presumably, it would take just as long to conduct another study on the hypothesized connection between 5G and cancer, but by that time, the industry will almost certainly have moved on to 6G -- or 7G."
"There is evidence to suggest that exposure to radio frequency emissions generated by wireless technologies could contribute to adverse health conditions such as cancer," reads the proposed resolution. This evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The final results of this study, published in November 2018, showed a strong association between the type of radiation used for mobile phone signals and certain types of cancerous tumors in lab rats. But that's where the situation gets tough. The NTP study, which took place over 10 years and involved exposing more than 7,000 rats and mice to radio-frequency radiation, focused on signals used by wireless technology under the 2G and 3G standards. It's nearly impossible to say whether these results will apply to 5G hardware.
"Since the available research doesn't address 5G, the Portland City Council's resolution demands that the FCC embark on another such research project to assess the health effects of 5G," reports Inverse. "Presumably, it would take just as long to conduct another study on the hypothesized connection between 5G and cancer, but by that time, the industry will almost certainly have moved on to 6G -- or 7G."
Sources tell us this is RM (Russian Modulation) Class I radiation, known to cause mutations and cancer in non Slavic DNA. Be very careful, peeps.
-=BeauHD=-
Think of all the new RF we've had in the past couple of decades with WiFi and cell towers absolutely everywhere.
What's happened to the rates of incidence of new cancer cases over that time? They're flat/down.
https://progressreport.cancer....
I call BS.
"Do some research" /s
5G network investigates you!
Yep looks like Portland citizens just don't believe real science. They don't like vaccines,, so it follows that the same kind of faith-based "science" that claims all wireless signals cause cancer would be believed as well..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's it. Just a simple "no". The inhabitants of Portlandia are free to believe in their confectionery fantasies. No one else has to entertain them. The FCC merely has to say "no". "No, the government will not participate in your bizarre beliefs. Look how far that's gotten you with your anti-vaccine stance. Yeah....so, no. You got a problem with it? You provide the hard, peer-reviewed evidence with replicable results that support your stance and then the government will take your concerns under advisement. Until then? No."
No need to mod that down. He is joking.
It's an insanely amplified, ultra short wavelength RF used. So yes, it causes cancer and is ionizing. You don't need a study, this is already well known by science.
Jenny McCarthy tells me that 5Gees causes autism and supports big telco. My child will grow up g-less
Higher bandwidth with lower latency will lead to more interactive apps expecting real time input. This will increase injuries from pedestrians walking where they shouldn't, stopping where it is not safe, etc. This will also lead to traffic accidents where drivers cannot pause the texting until the next red light.
Oh, you meant "Do microwaves give people cancer?" *sigh*
These signals can be easily stopped with a helmet made of aluminum foil. I might also suggest a mylar lining to your clothes, much like the one Jimmy McGill made for his brother Charles "Chuck" McGill, partner in the firm Hamlin, Hamlin and McGill.
This is why telecom companies install towers and then leave them unplugged for a month or so.
They wait for all the nutjobs to come out of the woodwork, complaining about all sorts of psychosomatic ailments from headaches to bunions, just to show how idiotic they are.
At this point the anti-wireless lobby need to all be handed copies of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and be required to take a quiz on what they learned. The only good thing about these whackos is that they at least cannot make the world more dangerous for everyone else the way those idiot anti-vaxxers do.
While I agree some studies should be done since 5G works at a different frequency range, I'm not about to go crazy over it. If organisms weren't designed to live with constant exposure to various forms of radiation, we wouldn't have evolved on a planet with a sun.
... autism because vaccination.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Federal agencies would get very little done if they agreed to do every study request from every piss-ant city.
How about Portland gets one of its state universities to do the study, and on the city's dime. I would also suggest donations from carriers, but that might taint the results.
Portland, OR city managers who have never been outside during the day may find this surprising:
There is this huge thing called the Sun. It emits ALL wavelengths. Cell phone towers limit their radiation because they don't want to interfere with the next "cell".
Portland, OR city management is VERY poor. One story: Portland's form of government fails residents in almost every way thinkable, report finds. (Feb. 10, 2019)
So there is a study that says that rats don't like being microwaved. The problem is that we are not rats, and we use reasonably powered cell phones, we don't receive extreme doses like these rats do.
At the same time there is an other study doing a statistical analysis on millions of people over many years and found no correlation between cancer rates and cell phone use.
So unless you are interested in the well being of rats in a microwave oven, why choose the less relevant study?
The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted for local tissues. They were full body exposed to these levels for 10 minutes every 10 minutes.
If you artificially heat things up (10W/kg) they tend to get burnt and develop cancer. Also female rats didn't seem to have this effect, only male rats and they only deviated slightly from controls with the majority of male rats living longer due to not developing kidney problems later in life.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Given the far left attitude of Portland, this is expected. They have zero understanding of RF energy, how low energy levels are at their phones. Given the lack of science taught in high school and especially college to liberal arts majors, this type of much ado about nothing is the result.
...then why wouldn't they be for 4g? The two use the same bands and effects.
Hope springs eternal for lawyers drooling over potential class action lawsuits.
One of those, and your law firm's principals are liquid, as Gordon Gecko might say.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That used to be normal. There isnt always wisdom in the crowd. Don't let the conservatives stop you from asking questions.
I bet all that officials have a mobile phone in their pocket. They fear 5G but accept older technologies that likely have the same risk.
We have been over this study, an article I submitted about it last year was discussed at length and the general conclusion was the study really showed that generally it was safe, but if they generated enough end points, you could get some statistically significant effects.
1. That is known as p-hacking and is recognized as not a best practice.
2. The effects that did appear, were not dose dependent so likely the result of p-hacking.
I think in a few of their end points, the exposure was shown to be protective, that is how you know the p-hacking basically identified some randomness, but the cohort was so small, it had statistical significance.
Wax on, wax off baby!
Cell phone transmissions make city councils nuts.
Have gnu, will travel.
Even the rat study required some pretty large tweaks to show anything. In fact it only showed cancer in one specific group out of many exposed to the radiation, basically if you combined all the groups then no more showed cancer than would be expected in a random group, but by singling out the one group that did show a result, while ignoring those who didn't, they made it look statistically significant when it was at best a "maybe we should try again and see if this can be reproduced" but more likely a "yup, still doesn't cause cancer"
Why study rats when we have huge scale human data?
Let's see:
1. Control - You can control nearly every aspect of a rats life during the experiments as compared to humans. This makes it easier to study the data you're trying to analyze rather than trying to sift data from human studies with so many external factors.
2. Accuracy - Because you control the environment in an animal study, you easily get accurate data from the test subjects. Human studies generally rely on human self-reporting (like "How often do you use your cell phone a day?"). Your results can only be as good as your data.
3. "Long-term" in a short time - The lifespan of rats allows one to study generational effects; something that would take decades for a human study. In this case, one might study generational genetic decay caused by cell phone use.
4. "Destructive" studies - It is possible to expose rats to excessive quantities of cell phone radiation that might be lethal. This allows one to see if there is any correlation in the data and at what levels of exposure subjects start running into problems.
And so on, and so on, and so on...
Overall, animal studies allow researchers to more closely control and better analyze the results while human studies are an exercise in extracting significant data from extremely noisy input by heavily processing the input and results with statistical methods.
I wonder which method is the better?
...isn't the best source of common sense. They also kicked out the FBI Joint Task Force for security, and regularly side with the homeless drug using population over tax payers. It is controlled by SJW zombies who can't think straight most likely because they weren't hugged enough by their mothers and now are trying to take it out on the normal people.
It doesn't matter whether it's technically safe or not, what if Portland just doesn't want 5G, and instead of arguing about all the reasons why are just taking whatever relevant actions to stall or prevent it? There is nothing wrong with that. We haven't even saturated the limits of 4G yet, and it's quite possible there are additional concerns of somehow this is going to cost the town money or increase general costs. if her whole town is set up to operate off of 4 g, and it's working, then by not allowing 5G, I can continue to keep their town operated the way they like it. Newer and faster does not always equal better and if you're satisfied with the way things are,well if it's not broke don't fix it. There's no reason why things have to be the same everywhere. That's the whole reason for having different places in order to have the option of different ways to do things without being questioned.
Horny Wimpwuss lies daily or better. He never served. In fact you can get cancer from x-band, and several others, they specifically warn about it right on the unit. Horny Wimpwuss knows nothing about this, just that he must FUD.
Horny Wimpwuss didn't go outside today.
The frequencies involved were going to cause people to wonder if cancer to the brain will happen. I know that I have never been concerned before but these high frequencies that will be used make me very nervous. Depending on the outcome 5g may turn into a major nightmare for the world and bankrupt a lot of companies.
I have recently found that there is an anti-science prevailing attitude at both extreme ends of the political spectrum.
A very left wing Facebook "friend" recently posted pictures of a book burning party which include books like Dawkin's Selfish Gene.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
It makes me feel safer to know that you only sort of see an effect even after cranking up the levels far beyond the maximum legal limits and having constant exposure to the radiation.
Most of the study used much higher power, but one portion used 1.5 W/kg RFR which is less than the FCC limit, and they found increased rate of cancer in that portion also.
In addition, the US Air Force study from 1990 on radar with pretty low intensity RFR/microwaves (2,450 MHz pulsed radiation with SAR 0.15-0.4 W/kg) found increased incidence of cancer compared to the control group.
Some details from Air Force study: "primary cancers were detected in the exposed rats 3.6 times more often than in control animals. Additionally, metastatic cancers were detected in the exposed rats 2 times more often than in the control."
The FCC absolute maximum allowable cell phone emission is 1.6 watts per kg. In this study they exposed rats nearly continuously to up to 12 watts per kg. Moral of the story? Don't talk on the phone for 12 hours with 8 phones next to your head at once.
At best, this is some politician proving he's "doing something". At worst, this is corporate-funded scare-mongering to eliminate a competing product.
Nothing to see here.
Cellphone radiation definitely doesn't cause cancer. Fankenfood is definitely good for us. There is definitely no back door in the electric voting system. Admission to the Ivy League is definitely not determined by bribery and favoritism.
No siree, definitely nothing to see here. Move along now!
But muh SCIENCE(tm)!!!1!!
I, for one, totally and without doubt trust the academic circle jerk process to reveal God's one and holy TRUTH to us humble ignorant peons. The claim that academic circle jerking is substantially directed and controlled by suitcases full of cash from the big pharma and big wireless is simply UNPOSSIBLE.
In conclusion I say: let's just trust our all-devouring corporate overlords and their fine mad scientists! What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, to point to those studies and say they PROVE that cell phones cause cancer is like pointing to people who died in a fire and say they PROVE that you shouldn't heat up your house.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Non-ionizing raditation, like from a 5G radio tower, cannot cause cancer.
A mild oxidizer, like hair bleach, can be carcinogenic. Best you stay away from stuff like apple cider vinegar diets, we suspect the lower pH can cause some chemicals like common prescription drugs or artificial sweeteners to turn into cancer causing forms.
Anyone at political extremes is borderline retarded. This is Idiocracy level of mass retarded.
No one likes being authoritatively told they are wrong about something. That's why it is easier to lead someone 95% of the way to a conclusion and let them make the leap.
The RF exposure is far higher with closer distances, so this will be different than cell towers, etc.
If there is nothing to fear, then why would people oppose testing for safety?
There is precedence in going ahead with ignorant assumptions about safety and learning that is wrong later, so that's why people are asking for testing. In the 50s X-rays for shoe sizing started to be a thing, until they learned of the risks. There were also proposals to warm the people, not the air, by microwaves inside the buildings, until they learned of the risks. Similar for exposure to chemicals these days, etc. We learn of the risks, we put out material data handling documents, advise people of the lethality of substances. It should be no different for things you cannot see.
OK. Let's try this. There are a lot of studies out there that show that RF can cause ______. The Communist Russian's issued a big report on the dangers of ______ radiation in 1970's. Lots of studies show that _________ can interfere with calcium-channel mechanisms in human ______. A leading epidemiologist has seen numerous reports of women getting unusual breast cancers because they they kept their _____ _____ stored in their bras. Studies show that men who keep their ______ _____ in their pockets have damaged sperm.....I could go on, but leaving the 5% up to you to complete.
No one likes being authoritatively told they are wrong about something.
Oh, you're so wrong about that.
Ezekiel 23:20
7000 rats cell phones?
Well said! This has been my experience; someone I disagree with is much more likely to end up believing what I do if I talk about why I believe something, play videos where other people talk about it, etc - but not where I tell them they should believe it or question why they don't.
It's like adage, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." It's helpful to offer up ideas to someone and they might even end up changing their mind, but they almost certainly will not change their mind if you insist that they should. They have to take the final leap from evidence to belief on their own, and trying to force that upon them almost always backfires.
Non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. I'm guessing a Venn diagram of anti-vaxers and people who think cell phones cause cancer would just be a circle.
I'd suggest everyone go watch Johnny Mnemonic (starring Keanu Reeves, 1995). Obviously a factual movie, it portrays the struggles of a dystopian society drowning in RF pollution, resulting in a malady known as the Black Shakes, and only Ice-T knows the cure.
On a more serious note, it's always about dosage - whether medicine or poison. Is 5G dangerous? Probably not in the beginning. But when we're drowning in it 20 years from now, the answer may be different. Would you be comfortable a 5G cell tower mounted 30 feet from your bedroom window? 5G is shorter range - so there's going to be a lot more towers.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I could construct an argument that agnosticism takes an "absolute positions on something that is not falsifiable". The fact that you can construct an argument says nothing about whether or not that argument is valid.
Then you need to catch up on all the research. What people are finding is that with the high frequencies 5G uses, and all the information states within each signal element, the sheer number of bits being beamed right through your ineffective/obsolete skull into your brain is overwhelming. Physicists have concluded that the bits can be arrayed in a matrix of where each element's light frequency varies, and if you use 5G to provide more variance over time, users have reported their ocular sensors locking on and in some situations they perceive things inside the transceiver which cannot possibly fit, such as spaceships, other people engaged in copulation, and even feline actvity. These illusions can sometimes encourage the human nervous system to direct its sensors and attention at the transceiver's screen instead of where they're walking. And that causes health problems such as people falling down manholes, stepping out in front of cars, etc. Worse, if the 5G victim happens to be operating a motor vehicle, they can make mistakes with the machine's guidance and collide with other vehicles or persons (possibly ones that previously weren't even infected with 5G at all). These kinds of things have been found in some studies to cause bone fractures, bleed outs, tissue and organ trauma, or even worse.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I say if they want to live in the stone age, more power to them. Don't roll out 5G in their town. Hell... Remove all cell towers since they think that they're dangerous. They can go back to landlines.
Any bets that there'd be a recall election and the city council would be out on their ass in a week from the time the cell sites were shut off?
provided the RF density rules of the FCC are followed (power, frequency, distance) there is no demonstrated ill effects at all, whatsoever. the only ones at risk with 5G are folks in a safety harness way up the tower.
if you are going to be an idiot, and stand at a powered antenna staring down the waveguide, yeah, you win the Darwin award. that has been known for almost a century.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
the live-in TV transmitter engineers (in early days of TV, the transmitter engineers were housed at the tower site and had beds in the transmitter building because, tech infancy) pretty much died of brain cancer. but the power, frequency, distance rules of the FCC on radiation safety have changed, and it's not an issue now. obey and carry on.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The RF exposure is far higher with closer distances, so this will be different than cell towers, etc.
This is unlikely. 5G microcells will be much lower power than large 3G cells. Plus your phone in your pocket will be able to transmit at lower power levels.
Never change Portland, never change! If you weren't doing something odd, I'd feel out of sorts. And I mean, it's really on Portland to investigate the dangers of 5G, right? Who else would take on this difficult, dangerous and expensive task? We need Portland to be on the case!
Can I get organic 5G, ethically sourced, vegan, GMO-free, gluten-free, halal, kosher, and fair-trade?
Portlandia!
Has anyone told them there are already communication systems operating in those bands already?
I'll assume there are no neurologists posting here. Doesn't it seem possible that someone's nervous system might make a decent enough antenna and resonate? If so, that would cause all kinds of issues.
My theory is that the cable companies will be funding and insipring a sinister conspiracy to slow down the adoption of 5G which has the potential to destroy what is left of their business.
Atheism as the position that 'there are no gods' is not something that most mainstream atheists hold. It is mostly something that theists use as a strawman argument.
The simple, most often used by atheists definition is: if you believe at least one god exists, you are a theist. If you don't hold that belief, you are an atheist. Atheism is not a positive claim, is not incompatible with agnosticism, and does not require faith. It is equivalent to saying, "I am not a theist".
If you are an atheist and also hold the further position that gods definitely do not exist, then you have a burden of proof to meet. But technically, so do people who believe the Easter Bunny does not exist.
It's easy to prove a negative. I can quickly prove that my shirt is not blue. What you cannot prove is a universal claim. The 'cannot prove a negative' cannard derives from the fact that the negative claim of many positive claim becomes universal.
Isn't your post just a virtue signal to the pious? You made no arguments, you just stated an opinion and then an insult. I can do that too. You're a fucking conservative hypocrite, like every conservative is. See how that works?
What the fuck is a "confectionary fantasy"? Is that like the idea of baking a cake for a gay couple will turn an Xstian gay?
You're correct, but left out the part where they self flagellate, admit their failures, and now belong to the "good" group of upstanding people who CARE.