Wifi Harmful - No that cant be

Author Topic: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be  (Read 3738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,221
Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« on: November 24, 2014, 01:23:42 PM »
Wifi is GOOD for you .... Mobile phones are like vitamins for your brain ,,,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2846494/Could-Wifi-harming-health-Thats-growing-number-people-believe-triggering-headaches-nausea-crippling-pain.html
Could Wifi be harming YOUR health?
That’s what a growing number of people believe is triggering their headaches, nausea and crippling pain

The list of places off-limits to Mary Coales is extensive 
The 63-year-old can’t go to theatres, restaurants, airports, or parks
Mary has electromagnetic hypersensitivity intolerance syndrome (EHS)
More than 3 million people think they have electro-sensitivity
By Polly Dunbar For The Daily Mail
Published: 17:49 EST, 23 November 2014 | Updated: 03:07 EST, 24 November 2014

...

comments:

Dorothy Shostak, Barnet, United States, 18 minutes ago
The article quotes Professor Malcolm Sperrin as saying there¿s no evidence of a correlation between wifi and mobile phone signals and illness. He's wrong. In fact there are thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing correlations between RFR and illness in humans & other species at wavelengths and strengths used in wifi, cellphones, radar, smartmeters, baby monitors, GPS, etc.

None of us is subjected anymore to the radiation from a single cellphone, but rather to an ocean of radiation blanketing the earth at 10-to-the-18th power stronger than what occurs naturally in the environment. Life didn't evolve to handle this amount of chaotic digital pulsed radiation. An estimated 3% of the world's population is currently made very sick from it, with another estimated 30% feeling the effects but not understanding where the symptoms are coming from. It's unfortunately likely to get much worse before people sit up and take real notice.


Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2014, 02:13:32 PM »
Wifi is GOOD for you .... Mobile phones are like vitamins for your brain ,,,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2846494/Could-Wifi-harming-health-Thats-growing-number-people-believe-triggering-headaches-nausea-crippling-pain.html
Could Wifi be harming YOUR health?
That’s what a growing number of people believe is triggering their headaches, nausea and crippling pain

The list of places off-limits to Mary Coales is extensive 
The 63-year-old can’t go to theatres, restaurants, airports, or parks
Mary has electromagnetic hypersensitivity intolerance syndrome (EHS)
More than 3 million people think they have electro-sensitivity

By Polly Dunbar For The Daily Mail
Published: 17:49 EST, 23 November 2014 | Updated: 03:07 EST, 24 November 2014

...

comments:

Dorothy Shostak, Barnet, United States, 18 minutes ago
The article quotes Professor Malcolm Sperrin as saying there¿s no evidence of a correlation between wifi and mobile phone signals and illness. He's wrong. In fact there are thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing correlations between RFR and illness in humans & other species at wavelengths and strengths used in wifi, cellphones, radar, smartmeters, baby monitors, GPS, etc.

None of us is subjected anymore to the radiation from a single cellphone, but rather to an ocean of radiation blanketing the earth at 10-to-the-18th power stronger than what occurs naturally in the environment. Life didn't evolve to handle this amount of chaotic digital pulsed radiation. An estimated 3% of the world's population is currently made very sick from it, with another estimated 30% feeling the effects but not understanding where the symptoms are coming from. It's unfortunately likely to get much worse before people sit up and take real notice.

  I am making a prediction.  The next new BIG claims for disability in the USA will be for EHS.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,221
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2014, 02:21:01 PM »
I was surprised recently by finding three wifi signals invading my rural home ... (Still working on breaking the passwords)...

If these signals give you cancer (or some other disease ) over a period of many years - who you gon'a sue?

Oh he got pancreatic cancer, too bad. Oh his kidneys failed, too bad. Oh heart disease, too bad ...

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2014, 02:45:21 PM »


  Yep, a lot of this technology is part of the slow kill.  Remember when they told people to keep cell phones away from their heads?  Very few do.  As an older person, I put the phone on speaker phone.  The main reason so I can hear.  The 2nd reason so I can take notes if I have to.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2014, 04:47:53 PM »
It is also an awful security risk.

One thing is that usually the ariel is screw in type. One good solid twist, and it simply un-does.

I mention this because most people have an wifi router supplied by the ISP, and these are often set to default to "on". Anyway manually removing the antenna is a nice simple fix.


Offline Due_Process_NonNegotiable

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2014, 06:41:24 PM »
You guys realize the Daily Mail is to the UK what the National Enquirer is to us in North America right?  Not to say this condition does or doesn't exist, but that I would take their "reporting style" with a grain of salt.  It is after all, a tabloid..

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,221
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2014, 07:01:02 PM »
People from Harvard are dopes ... don't read their research ... everything you read is a lie ...

http://www.safeinschool.org/2013/02/harvard-neurologist-warns-wifi.html
Saturday, February 9, 2013
 
Harvard Neurologist Warns:
WiFi Radiation Damages Brains of Children

TO: Los Angeles Unified School District
 FROM: Martha R Herbert, PhD, MD
 RE: Wireless vs. Wired in Classrooms
 DATE: February 8, 2013
 
I am a pediatric neurologist and neuroscientist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and on staff at the Massachusetts General Hospital. I am Board Certified in Neurology with Special Competency in Child Neurology, and Subspecialty Certification in Neurodevelopmental Disorders
 
I have an extensive history of research and clinical practice in neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly autism spectrum disorders. I have published papers in brain imaging research, in physiological abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders, and in environmental influences on neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and on brain development and function.

I recently accepted an invitation to review literature pertinent to a potential link between Autism Spectrum Disorders and Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF) and Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR). I set out to write a paper of modest length, but found much more literature than I had anticipated to review. I ended up producing a 60 page single spaced paper with over 550 citations. It is available at 
 
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012_Findings_in_Autism.pdf

In fact, there are thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades – and are now accumulating at an accelerating pace, as our ability to measure impacts become more sensitive – that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR. Children are more vulnerable than adults, and children with chronic illnesses and/or neurodevelopmental disabilities are even more vulnerable. Elderly or chronically ill adults are more vulnerable than healthy adults.

Current technologies were designed and promulgated without taking account of biological impacts other than thermal impacts. We now know that there are a large array of impacts that have nothing to do with the heating of tissue. The claim from wifi proponents that the only concern is thermal impacts is now definitively outdated scientifically.

EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.

Powerful industrial entities have a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR, which we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true. Please do the right and precautionary thing for our children.
 
I urge you to step back from your intention to go wifi in the LAUSD, and instead opt for wired technologies, particularly for those subpopulations that are most sensitive. It will be easier for you to make a healthier decision now than to undo a misguided decision later.
 ...

Thank you.

Martha Herbert, PhD, MD
Pediatric Neurology
Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
USA

Original text: http://goo.gl/Okafv
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Due_Process_NonNegotiable

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2014, 07:24:51 PM »
Quote
EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function.

This is old news.  Nowhere in the Harvard study did they mention "agonizing pain". 

Some people are also just hypochondriacs, but their "hard hitting story", and it's extremely tiny connection to the truth (the Harvard study), made for a perfect BS article to write.  That's how the Daily Mail (and all tabloids) works. 

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,221
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2014, 12:31:44 PM »
It maybe old news - but the public is not aware of the health dangers, especially to their children's health. let me tell you , people poopooing the dangers of these new and novel devices are in for a health surprise.

Here's an article on Wi-Fi frequencies:


http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179344-how-to-boost-your-wifi-speed-by-choosing-the-right-channel

...
Channels 1, 6, and 11

First of all, we’ll talk about 2.4GHz, because as of the start of 2014 almost all WiFi installations still use the 2.4GHz band. 802.11ac, which debuted last year, will drive the adoption of 5GHz — but due to backwards compatibility and dual-radio routers and devices, 2.4GHz will probably reign for a while yet.



All of the versions of WiFi up to and including 802.11n (a, b, g, n) operate between the frequencies of 2400 and 2500MHz. These paltry 100MHz are separated into 14 channels of 20MHz each. As you have probably worked out, 14 lots of 20MHz is a lot more than 100MHz — and as a result, every 2.4GHz channel overlaps with at least two (but usually four) other channels (see diagram above). As you can probably imagine, using overlapping channels is bad — in fact, it’s the primary reason for awful throughput on your wireless network.

Fortunately, channels 1, 6, and 11 are spaced far enough apart that they don’t overlap. On a non-MIMO setup (i.e. 802.11 a, b, or g) you should always try to use channel 1, 6, or 11. If you use 802.11n with 20MHz channels, stick to channels 1, 6, and 11 — if you want to use 40MHz channels, be aware that the airwaves might be very congested unless you live in a detached house in the middle of nowhere (like me).
...

But what about 5GHz?
Prepare for lots and lots of antennas

The great thing about 5GHz (802.11n and 802.11ac), because there’s much more free space at the higher frequencies, is that offers 23 non-overlapping 20MHz channels!

It’s also worth pointing out that, starting with 802.11n, wireless technology in general is a lot more advanced than the olden days of 802.11 b and g. If you own a modern 802.11n router (i.e. if you bought a router in the last couple of years), it likely has some fancy hardware inside that chooses the right channel and modifies the output power to maximize throughput and minimize interference.
...
Eventually, of course, 5GHz will fill up as well — but hopefully by then, we’ll have worked out how to use even higher frequencies (60GHz WiGig) or entirely new antenna designs (pCells, infinite capacity vortex beams) to cope with our wireless networking demands.
...

| - - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi, also spelled Wifi or WiFi, is a local area wireless technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or connect to the internet using 2.4 GHz UHF and 5 GHz SHF radio waves.
...
The first version of the 802.11 protocol was released in 1997, and provided up to 2Mbit/s link speeds. This was updated in 1999 with 802.11b to permit 11Mbit/s link speeds, and this proved to be popular.

...

The wifi signal range depends on the frequency band, radio power output, antenna gain and antenna type. Line-of-sight is the thumbnail guide but reflection and refraction can have a significant impact. An Access Point compliant with either 802.11b or 802.11g, using the stock antenna might have a range of 100 m (330 ft).

The same radio with an external semi parabolic antenna (15db gain) might have a range over 20 miles.

IEEE 802.11n, however, can more than double the range.[43] Range also varies with frequency band. Wi-Fi in the 2.4 GHz frequency block has slightly better range than Wi-Fi in the 5 GHz frequency block used by 802.11a (and optionally by 802.11n). On wireless routers with detachable antennas, it is possible to improve range by fitting upgraded antennas which have higher gain in particular directions. Outdoor ranges can be improved to many kilometers through the use of high gain directional antennas at the router and remote device(s). In general, the maximum amount of power that a Wi-Fi device can transmit is limited by local regulations, such as FCC Part 15 in the US.

Due to reach requirements for wireless LAN applications, Wi-Fi has fairly high power consumption compared to some other standards. Technologies such as Bluetooth (designed to support wireless PAN applications) provide a much shorter propagation range between 1 and 100m[44] and so in general have a lower power consumption. Other low-power technologies such as ZigBee have fairly long range, but much lower data rate. The high power consumption of Wi-Fi makes battery life in mobile devices a concern.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

Super high frequency (or SHF) is the ITU designation for radio frequencies (RF) in the range between 3 GHz and 30 GHz. This band of frequencies is also known as the centimetre band or centimetre wave as the wavelengths range from one to ten centimetres. These frequencies fall within the microwave band, so radio waves with these frequencies are called microwaves
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_burn

Microwave burns are burn injuries caused by thermal effects of microwave radiation absorbed in a living organism.

In comparison with radiation burns caused by ionizing radiation, where the dominant mechanism of tissue damage is internal cell damage caused by free radicals, the primary damage mechanism of microwave radiation is thermal, by dielectric heating.

Microwave damage can manifest with a delay; pain and/or signs of skin damage can show some time after microwave exposure
...

[ Which gets us to EHS Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)]

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/health/sensitivity.asp

Electrical Hypersensitivity (ES) is an illness that is both highly controversial and little understood. The symptoms can vary a lot between sufferers, but will normally include some of the following: sleep disturbance, tiredness, depression, headaches, restlessness, irritability, concentration problems, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, frequent infections, blood pressure changes, limb and joint pains, numbness or tingling sensations, tinnitus, hearing loss, impaired balance, giddiness and eye problems. There have been reports of cardiovascular problems such as tachycardia, though these are relatively rare.

If you are convinced that you are electromagnetically hypersensitive, you should consider shielding your sleeping environment to minimise the impact on your daily health.

Many of the symptoms reported have a lot in common with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and it is quite common for someone who suffers from one condition to suffer from the other[1]. It seems quite sensible to theorise that both syndromes therefore may affect particularly susceptible members of the population. It may also be that there is a 'synergistic' effect; i.e. people develop symptoms in the presence of both (or multiple) environmental exposures, whereas only one such exposure would not provoke the symptoms.

A useful analogy can be drawn between epilepsy and EHS as follows:

Electrosensitivity is often scoffed at as a ridiculous proposition on the basis that people are bathed with EMFs all day long, from countless sources including light from the sun, the earth's magnetic field, etc - so what could be wrong with a little bit of Mobile Phone/DECT/Tetra? And why would the body react any differently just because it's pulsed a bit? Besides, most people aren't complaining about it - if it was a real issue, surely more people would be reporting the symptoms?

Photosensitive Epilepsy is a rare condition where visual stimuli at a certain frequency sends the person into epileptic seizures. About 0.75% of people have epilepsy, and about 5% of these people are of the photosensitive type - about 0.04% of the population in total. People with Photosensitive epilepsy are fine when exposed to light normally, but when they are exposed to light which flashes at a certain frequency - typically 16-25Hz, they go into a seizure. This condition has become an issue only in modern times due to technology, where televisions and computer monitors have started to produce the frequencies of light which can activate the epileptic fits.

Does that sound similar to you?

In February 2006, at a meeting of the Dutch working group on EHS, Hugo Schooneveld, a neurobiologist, and himself a sufferer, showed how different radiation can have different effects on different people. He showed that there may be some delay before health effects are experienced. Indeed they can be perceived as positive at first and negative after a lengthy exposure. Sometimes low and high exposure do not have effects, but exposure in between has (called a 'window' effect, see below). He also confirmed from his clinical experience that although EMFs may only cause small effects in biological systems, small effects on a cellular level can lead to large consequences on the organ level.
...

Powerfrequency EMFs

Powerfequency electric and magnetic fields are produced by powerlines, substations, electricity distribution faults, electrical appliances in the home or workplace, house wiring, cables, cars, trains, etc. Many people believe that their ill-health effects arise as a result of proximity to these sources, or as a result of living in the fields they generate. People exposed to EMFs may develop an illness such as childhood leukaemia[2][3][4], adult skin cancer[5], breast cancer[6], Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) [7][8][9] and miscarriage[10][11][12]. The research has looked at proximity to sources and also field levels and associated ill-health.

The exposure that results in an increased risk of developing these illnesses may not be the same as that which provokes and aggravates ES. People who suffer from ES tend to have a wider range of symptoms with a less well defined clinical outcome.[1]

Common electrical appliances, such as televisions and computers often provoke mild to moderate symptoms in ES people[13][14]. An increase in mast cells (such as found in people suffering from allergies) have been found in people watching television[15][16][17]. Different types of lighting, especially fluorescent fixtures (including the new low-energy bulbs) are difficult for many people with ES to tolerate[18]. This has wide implications, as fluorescent lighting is used in most offices, hospitals, shopping and leisure centres. This could make these facilities very difficult for people with ES to access. Transport such as cars, trains, planes, trams all contain equipment that give off levels of EMFs that sensitive people may find hard to tolerate.

Radiofrequency EMFs

There has been a lot of speculation in the media about ill-health effects such as these being caused by a number of modern wireless communication conveniences, such as mobile phones and their base stations, DECT cordless phones and WiFi.

The research into ES has been very varied, with a number of papers finding effects on brain activity[19][20][21][22][23][24] (of which some found RF exposure actually enhanced cognitive ability[25][26][27][28][29]), altered EEG measurements[30][31][32][33][34][35][36], or other recordable cellular effects[37][38][39][40][41][42], of which some highlight a possibility that EMFs only effect cellular mechanisms on cells with a specific genetic background[43][44][45][46]. All of these are objective effects, and can ignore the possibilities of a nocebo effect as stimulated by the recent press coverage. There have been a number of papers finding these "Microwave Syndrome" effects from the usage of mobile and cordless phones and mobile phone base stations[47][48][49][50][51].

It is important to remember that there is also a good deal of literature failing to find an effect with most of the above (with the exception that very little epidemiological work has been done on mobile phone base stations, and that which has been carried out primarily shows an effect), probably in a ratio of around 1:1 (i.e. 50% show an effect, 50% don't). However, it is also important to remember that positive and negative/null studies do not cancel each other out. It is very easy to fail to cater for a certain important confounding factor (even if just through lack of understanding at the time of research), and therefore far easier to fail to find an effect compared to finding an effect. Unless the studies that find an effect are flawed in some way, then 3 or 4 separately conducted studies finding the same effect is exceptionally important evidence.

It is undeniable that there is no general consensus of agreement in the literature, but it is also very clear that the probability of low power RF EMFs having non-thermal effects is very high. The extent of such effects will likely remain unclear for quite some time, but the recognition of non-thermal effects by international bodies such as WHO will open the doors to significant progress in this field - it is hard to see why they are still clinging to the old paradigm of "if it doesn't heat you, it doesn't hurt you".
...

Symptoms and Causation

The report contains references to a number of questionnaire surveys that have found statistically significant increases in "Microwave Syndrome" effects[52][53][54][55], but the connection between these effects and the EMF sources are subjectively based on the participants' claims.

Some mobile phone studies which use questionnaire responses as the basis for their information, have been criticised as subject to recall bias and therefore are likely to be inaccurate. Often the criticisms suggested that the bias would result in risks being exaggerated. However, recent work by the Interphone group, an International research collaboration involving 13 countries[56], claim that heavy users tend to overestimate their total usage which, if correct, would mean that e.g. statistically significant increases may in fact be for less usage than actually reported. If so, this consequently implies that the brain tumour risk from mobile phone usage may be greater than that suggested. This uncertainty with regard to bias is likely to apply to other areas of research relying on questionnaire information.
...

Summary

Our belief is that there is now plenty of evidence to support the possibility that some people are very genuinely affected by electromagnetic radiation to varying degrees. We believe that as many as 5% of people could be affected (exhibiting typical stress symptoms such as headaches, tiredness and concentration difficulties), and a fraction of a percent affected to quite severe degrees (such as not being able to use even a mobile phone without suffering from severe symptoms).

It is unknown what exactly triggers electrical sensitivity, though a number of possibilities (such as VDUs, fluorescent lighting, mobile phones or mobile phone masts, or by chemical exposure such as a damp proof course installation, garden or farm sprays, cavity wall insulation, etc) have been suggested.

We have written an extensive book on this subject, Electrical Hypersensitivity (ES), a Modern Illness, which includes chapters on what ES is, what triggers it, how it develops and affects people. It describes the known biology of ES and some of the theories that are being researched. Most importantly, there is a chapter on what to do if you think you have ES. The changes that are important to make, including reducing your exposure, using shielding materials in the home, having complementary therapies that help your body cope better and making lifestyle changes that will help you prevent your health from deteriorating. Remember once ES is initiated it does not seem to go away of its own accord, it frequently continues to get worse, and can lead to the necessity of living in an electricity-free environment with all the limitations that involves, if it is not taken seriously and acted on early enough. The book has references, information about support groups and websites of interest. If you want help to convince someone else, including your GP, that what you are suffering is real and not "all in the mind", this is well worth reading through.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2014, 01:06:19 PM »
wifi works on the principle of "lazybones".

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,221
Re: Wifi Harmful - No that cant be
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2017, 11:05:48 AM »
https://iervn.com/2017/05/18/5g-radiation-dangers-11-reasons-to-be-concerned/
5G RADIATION DANGERS – 11 REASONS TO BE CONCERNED
May 2017 –  by Lloyd Burrell  Electricsense.com

Like it or not we’re rapidly moving into the world of 5G, or 5th generation cellular telecommunications.

Why?

Because the frequency bandwidths used currently by cell phones and similar technologies are becoming saturated.

And also because we live in a world where people want more. 5G, and the Internet of Things (IoT) that goes with it, promises to give us more.

But more what?
...
According to Fortune.com 5G will support at least 100 billion devices and will be 10 to 100 times faster than current 4G technology.(4G was already about 10 times faster than 3G).

It’ll bring download speed up to 10 Gigabits per second. This would let us have an entire building of people send each other data in close to no time, thus improving productivity.
What is 5G?

5G offers mind-blowing data capabilities, practically unrestricted call volumes and near infinite data broadcast. It does this by 5G using largely untapped bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is between 30GHz and 300GHz, as well as some lower and mid-range frequencies….

….. Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:

    DNA single and double strand breaks
    oxidative damage
    disruption of cell metabolism
    increased blood brain barrier permeability
    melatonin reduction
    disruption to brain glucose metabolism
    generation of stress proteins


Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization(WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen.

More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.

But where does 5G fit into all this? Given that 5G is set to utilize frequencies above and below existing frequency bands 5G sits in the middle of all this. But the tendency (it varies from country to country) is for 5G to utilize the higher frequency bands. Which brings it’s own particular concerns. Here is my review of the studies done to date – 11 reasons to be concerned….  READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
...

Live Testing Already Begun

AT&T have announced the availability of their 5G Evolution in Austin, Texas. 5G Evolution allows Samsung S8 and S8 + users access to faster speeds. This is part of AT&T’s plan to lay the 5G foundation while the standards are being finalized. This is expected to happen in late 2018. AT&T has eyes on 19 other metropolitan areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco and so on. Indianapolis is up next on their 5G trail due to arrive in the summer.

Qualcomm has already demonstrated a 5G antenna system with about 27 decibel gain. According to ABI Research, is “about 10 to 12 more db than a typical cellular base station antenna.” Not a good sign.

Many more private sector companies such as HTC, Oracle, Sprint, T-Mobile are playing a role in the developing of testing platforms by contributing time, knowledge or money.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5