Is 5G Technology Really A Health Risk?

[MattNelson]

Don't put a cell tower in a nursery. Don't strap a cellphone to your head for extended periods.

- Reality Check post 111

What if this is all I'm saying? Thanks. People shouldn't keep their phones in their pockets, either. Looking at this as a business opportunity, you might be willing to forget about the "doubt" that there are health effects. Plenty of money to be made selling RF shielding underwear. LOL. I could cite some studies listed in the "VIII. Effects On Male Fertility" section at:
https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies

Male Fertility and its Association with Occupational and Mobile Phone Tower Hazards: An Analytical Study. Al-Quzwini, Al-Taee, et al. Middle East Fertility Society Journal (2016).
Sperm DNA Damage – The Effect of Stress and Everyday Life Factors. Radwan, M, et al. International Journal of Impotence Research 28, 148-154 (2016).
Electromagnetic Radiation at 900 MHz Induces Sperm Apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 Signaling Pathways in Rats. Liu, Si, et al. Journal of Reproductive Health 12:65 (2015).
Habits of Cell Phone usage and Sperm Quality - Does It Warrant Attention? Zilverlight, Wiener-Megnazi, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 31(3):421-426 (2015).
Extremely Low frequency Magnetic Fields Induce Spermatogenic Germ Cell Apoptosis: Possible Mechanism. Lee, Park, et al. BioMed Research International (2014).
In Vitro Effect of Cell Phone Radiation on Motility, DNA Fragmentation and Clusterin Gene Expression in Human Sperm. Zalata, El-Samanoudy, et al. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility 9(1):129-136 (2014).
Effect of Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the Reproductive System. Gye and Park. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 39(1):1-19 (2012).
Effects of the Exposure of Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature. Vignera, Condorelli, et al. Journal of Andrology 33(3):350-356 (2012).
Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet Through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation. Avendano, C., et al. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):39045 (2012).
Exposure to Magnetic fields and the Risk of Poor Sperm Quality. Li, Yan, et al. Journal of Reproductive Toxicology 29(1):86-92 (2010).
Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro. Luliis, Newey, et al. PLoS ONE 4(7) (2009).
Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (Rf-EMR) from GSM Mobile Phones Induces Oxidative Stress and Reduces Sperm Motility in Rats. Mailankot, Kunnath, et al. Clinical Science 64(6):561-5 (2009).
Cell Phones: Modern Man's Nemesis? Makker, Varghese, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18(1):148-157 (2008).
Indicative SAR Levels Due to an Active Mobile Phone in a Front Trouser Pocket in Proximity to Common Metallic Objects. Whittow, Panagamuwa, et al. Propagation Conference 149-152 (2008).
Cell Phones and Male Infertility: Dissecting the Relationship. Deepinder, Makker, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15(3):266-270 (2007).
Evaluation of the Effect of Using Mobile Phones on Male Fertility. Wdowiak, Wiktor, et al. Annals of Agricultural and Medicine14(1):169-172 (2007).
Effect of Cell Phone Usage on Semen Analysis in Men Attending Infertility Clinic: An Observational Study. Agarwal, Deepinder, et al. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 89(1):124-8 (2008).


There is much fear, witnessed in the extreme in this Facebook video from Greece, where a woman talks of a new "G5" antenna installed nearby: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5Gdanger/permalink/485822545524503/

OK, you may appreciate this...

"Potential Risks to Human Health from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems: Paul Ben-Ishai, PhD"
As a radio engineer he cannot authoritatively comment on the health effects. He does a good job of relating to his audience of doctors who understand the skin and the sweat ducts, the latter which act like antennae.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuVtGldYXK4
Also linked at the Environmental Health Trust website: https://ehtrust.org/science/key-sci...expert-forum-wireless-radiation-human-health/

He talks about millimeter wave tech, which is 5G, and numerous studies that lead to his final slide comment, "These standards do not consider the SkinRad effect when assessing possible health risk issues."

He studies the effects on people's skin and sweat ducts. "I think it's safe to say they'll sweep this one under the carpet as far as they possibly can." - video at 20:20

 

[Reality Check]

...

Yet more ignorance about what credible sources and science is from MattNelson.

A Gish gallop of papers from a political pressure group's web site.

Wasting our time with another irrelvant YouTube video - we know that cell towers exist and there are cranks out there ranting about them.

Yet another YouTube video!

"As a radio engineer" Paul Ben Ishai, PhD cannot state anything about health effects because he is not a doctor or researching health effects. He and his co-authors have close to a fantasy about sweat ducts in skin acting as arrays of antennas. This has been around for over a decade and they are the only ones really supporting it. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not? and the answer is that they do not know. Their model only produced a specific absorption rate for the skin.

 

[MattNelson]

You would prefer no sources then. I'm finding relevant material and posting it. What is your problem?

 

[Pixel42]

The problem is that this is the science forum, MattNelson, not the crackpot forum.

 

[ferd burfle]

You would prefer no sources then. I'm finding relevant material and posting it. What is your problem?

A typical ploy; throw a shedload of links from an activist site over the wall and expect us to refute them. You are the one making the affirmative claim, it’s up to you to present your case. Why don’t you select the reference from your list you think best makes your case and walk us through the science?

 

[carlitos]

-
Sperm DNA Damage – The Effect of Stress and Everyday Life Factors. Radwan, M, et al. International Journal of Impotence Research 28, 148-154 (2016).

Color me skeptical.

Sperm DNA damage—the effect of stress and everyday life factors
M Radwan, J Jurewicz, D Merecz-Kot, W Sobala, P Radwan, M Bochenek & W Hanke
International Journal of Impotence Research volume 28, pages 148–154 (2016)

Abstract
The clinical significance of sperm DNA damage lies in its association with natural conception rates and also might have a serious consequence on developmental outcome of the newborn. The aim of the present study is to determine whether stress and everyday life factors are associated with sperm DNA damage in adult men. The study population consisted of 286 men who attended the infertility clinic for diagnostic purposes and who had normal semen concentration of 20–300 M ml−1 or with slight oligozoospermia (semen concentration of 15–20 M ml−1) (WHO, 1999). Participants were interviewed and provided a semen sample. The sperm chromatin structure assay was assessed using flow cytometry. In the present study, we found evidence for a relationship between sperm DNA damage parameters and everyday life factors. High and medium level of occupational stress and age increase DNA fragmentation index (P=0.03, P=0.004 and P=0.03, respectively). Other lifestyle factors that were positively associated with percentage of immature sperms (high DNA stainability index) included: obesity and cell phone use for more than 10 years (P=0.02 and P=0.04, respectively). Our findings indicate that stress and lifestyle factor may affect sperm DNA damage. Data from the present study showed a significant effect of age, obesity, mobile phone radiation and occupational stress on sperm DNA damage. As DNA fragmentation represents an extremely important parameter indicative of infertility and potential outcome of assisted reproduction treatment, and most of the lifestyle factors are easily modifiable, the information about factors that may affect DNA damage are important.

Advanced age is significantly correlated with sperm DNA damage at p=0.03. Cell phone use for more than 10 years is correlated with sperm DNA damage at p=0.04. In 2016. I'd love to see how they controlled for co-variance there. By 2006, the percentage of adults with no cell phone must have been minuscule. Out of less than 300 study participants, I'd bet that the non-cell-phone adults sample was way too small to be statistically significant.

 

[JeanTate]

You would prefer no sources then. I'm finding relevant material and posting it. What is your problem?

Perhaps it’s an aversion to seagulls?

 

[Trebuchet]

Here's a U.S. Senator, Patrick Colbeck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-UEuOYOED4
Skip to 2:00 for talk of health effects.

That is repeated ignorance of what science is, MattNelson !

Science is not the opinions of a politician - in this case the pretty much anti-vaccination and "anti-LGBTQ bigot" Senator Patrick Colbeck. See Senator Patrick Colbeck’s embrace of pseudoscience goes farther than I thought

Colbeck misleads the meeting - there is no convincing evidence of cancer tumors, etc. from wireless transmission such as cell phone towers. High levels of EM radiation do cause harmful heath effects. Colbeck definitely lies about EM radiation and ties to autism.

He's not a U.S. Senator, either, but a member of the state Senate. The state legislatures of the USA are quite astoundingly full of crackpots.

 

[Reality Check]

You would prefer no sources then. I'm finding relevant material and posting it. What is your problem?

A "prefer no sources then" lie, MattNelson, when this a Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread where I and others prefer scientific sources.
A random woman talking about a cell tower is not a scientific source.
A politician in a hearing stating the delusion that EMR causes autism is not a scientific source.
A radio engineer touting a pet theory only believed in by his group is not a credible scientific source.

A "finding relevant material" lie, MattNelson, because non-science and dubious science YouTube videos are only relevant to showing your ignorance about what science means.
Science is not published in YouTube videos.
Scientific papers have basic criteria to be credible such as a good rate of citations by other scientists. If papers are ignored by other scientists, they are either trivial or invalid.

 

[Elagabalus]

One word!

Alien Lizard Men!

 

[catsmate]

Here's a U.S. Senator, Patrick Colbeck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-UEuOYOED4
Skip to 2:00 for talk of health effects.

How about a scientist with a peer reviewed journal paper?

 

[catsmate]

<drivel snip>

I
More paranoid fantasising instead of science? Pathetic.
Why are you continuing to regurgitate Davis's crap rather than, say, Chapman's study of decades of cellular use that debunks the brain cancer nonsense? Or his fascinating study of the use of mobile telephony for lifesaving?
Instead you parrot the astroturfed lies of Waletzky and her cronies.

 

[catsmate]

You would prefer no sources then. I'm finding relevant material and posting it. What is your problem?

Because through ignorance of deliberate malice you're "citing" material that has been debunked, withdrawn, disproved or is irrelevant, valueless or untrue.

 

[catsmate]

The problem is that this is the science forum, MattNelson, not the crackpot forum.

He has a thread there too.

 

[catsmate]

One word!

Alien Lizard Men!

Meh, I still prefer Antarctic Space Nazis...

 

[catsmate]

He's not a U.S. Senator, either, but a member of the state Senate. The state legislatures of the USA are quite astoundingly full of crackpots.

This particular one is an xian kook with libertarian leanings, a racist, xenophobe, misogynist and homophobe who the DFP describes as a "bloviating bomb-thrower".


The right sort of person for MN apparently.

 

[Mader Levap]

You would prefer no sources then.

They think that your sources are not worth very much.

Anyone can put up Youtube video with crazy claims. That won't convince anyone that is not already gullible.

 

[Dude111]

It's bollocks.

 
Its best to edge on the side of caution...... 5G ULTRA WIDEBAND is indeed dangerous and thankfully cannot be deployed just anywhere..... (The signal wont travel that far)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

*
Its best to edge on the side of caution...... 5G ULTRA WIDEBAND is indeed dangerous and thankfully cannot be deployed just anywhere..... (The signal wont travel that far)

Still bollocks.

If you want to edge on the side of caution, I suggest you go and hide under your bed.

 

[casebro]

Still bollocks.

If you want to edge on the side of caution, I suggest you go and hide under your bed.

Ha-uh. 5G won't travel far but it WILL penetrate a bed.

Besides, the Y2K monster still lives under there.