The DU Lounge

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts) Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:13 AM Jul 2019

I just read this about 5G phone service

(We're going to need a new phone)

"It’s been estimated that 5G network service will provide speeds 10 to 100 times greater than what we currently experience with 4G. (“5G,” simply refers to the fifth generation, meaning it is the next and newest mobile wireless standard being developed under recognized international guidelines. A new mobile generation has appeared about every 10 years since the first “1G” system was introduced in 1982.)

With 5G, you’d be able to download a season’s worth of your favorite streaming program in seconds! Even faster than anything you can get with a physical fiber-optic cable into your house.

But this doesn’t mean you need to rush out to buy that first 5G smartphone just yet.

5G network service won’t be widely available until 2020 or beyond. Wireless providers are still testing and rolling it out slowly in select markets. While some 5G smartphones are expected to come out this year, the access they have to utilize the technology will be fairly limited."

https://tinyurl.com/y5tu9dw3

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I just read this about 5G phone service (Original Post) left-of-center2012 Jul 2019 OP

I will wait a couple of years Sherman A1 Jul 2019 #1

5G is fatal to Humans....I would not open a link that uses a tiny url HipChick Jul 2019 #2

That article is bullshit, 100%. Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2019 #4

The largest study to date found rats exposed to cell phone radiation live longer Major Nikon Jul 2019 #13

Exactly. Nt Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2019 #15

About your source "gaia" left-of-center2012 Jul 2019 #5

Gaia isn't a single source ...google 5G harm to humans HipChick Jul 2019 #7

google 'flat Earth' ... you'll find believers left-of-center2012 Jul 2019 #8

I know when I want science facts, I turn to the business section of the LA Times Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2019 #16

Unlike the first reference, there isn't anything non-factual in the LA Times story Major Nikon Jul 2019 #17

I'm sure it does, but when I'm trying to convey science to people, I tend use Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2019 #18

The problem is the HHS study lacks unbiased peer review Major Nikon Jul 2019 #21

Which brings out the conspiracy theorists, sadly... Dr Hobbitstein Jul 2019 #22

Didn't Dump recently tout how great 6G is? F'ing idiot CurtEastPoint Jul 2019 #3

but, but, will I still have dead spots? still_one Jul 2019 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author sl8 Jul 2019 #9

"More at link" left-of-center2012 Jul 2019 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author sl8 Jul 2019 #12

totally unnecessary for most people nt msongs Jul 2019 #10

Which is also true for all sorts of emerging technologies Major Nikon Jul 2019 #14

Cars with 300+ horsepower are totally unnecessary for most people True Dough Jul 2019 #19

An essential technology for autonomous cars in an urban environment. hack89 Jul 2019 #20

Sherman A1

(38,958 posts)

1. I will wait a couple of years

Reply to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:16 AM

Jul 2019

I usually get about 4 years out of my iPhones before replacing them.

HipChick

(25,485 posts)

2. 5G is fatal to Humans....I would not open a link that uses a tiny url

Reply to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:17 AM

Jul 2019

https://www.gaia.com/article/5g-health-risks-the-war-between-technology-and-human-beings

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

4. That article is bullshit, 100%.

Reply to HipChick (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:23 AM

Jul 2019

5G is not harmful to humans. Gaia is FAR from a reputable source about anything.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

13. The largest study to date found rats exposed to cell phone radiation live longer

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:40 PM

Jul 2019

And that was at levels which far exceeded anything even the highest cell phone users could expect to be exposed to over a course of a lifetime.

So we're probably not at the hair on fire point just yet.

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

15. Exactly. Nt

Reply to Major Nikon (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:11 AM

Jul 2019

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)

5. About your source "gaia"

Reply to HipChick (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:42 AM

Jul 2019

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The site has courted controversy within the pseudoscientific community.

It has been accused of being sensationalist. The site has been accused of Luciferianism and using directed-energy weapons by a former content producer, Patty Greer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia,_Inc.

Oh, and as for the ‘tiny url’:

“TinyURL is a URL shortening web service, which provides short aliases for redirection of long URLs. Kevin Gilbertson, a web developer, launched the service in January 2002[3] as a way to post links in newsgroup postings which frequently had long, cumbersome addresses.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TinyURL

HipChick

(25,485 posts)

7. Gaia isn't a single source ...google 5G harm to humans

Reply to left-of-center2012 (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:37 AM

Jul 2019

How about LATimes?

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html

It always cracks me when people act like they can't use Google..

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)

8. google 'flat Earth' ... you'll find believers

Reply to HipChick (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:40 AM

Jul 2019

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

16. I know when I want science facts, I turn to the business section of the LA Times

Reply to HipChick (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:14 AM

Jul 2019

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

17. Unlike the first reference, there isn't anything non-factual in the LA Times story

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:29 AM

Jul 2019

It just sensationalizes a study that has a number of flaws, not the least of which is lacking unbiased peer review, and when you dig into the details shows exactly the opposite of what the hair-on-fire reactionists would have you believe.

In addition, as we’ve noted previously, there were unusual findings in the study, such as: the rats exposed to whole body radiofrequency energy lived longer than rats that were not exposed to any radiation (control group); only male rats exposed to the highest radiofrequency energy dosage developed a statistically significant number of heart schwannomas, which are very rare in humans, when compared to the control group in this experiment. There was also no true dose response, or a lack of a clear relationship between the doses of radiation administered to the animals and their subsequent tumor rate. Researchers will need to consider all of the findings when exploring future human epidemiological studies.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-devices-and-radiological-health-national

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

18. I'm sure it does, but when I'm trying to convey science to people, I tend use

Reply to Major Nikon (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:47 AM

Jul 2019

Peer reviewed journals, not the business section of a newspaper.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

21. The problem is the HHS study lacks unbiased peer review

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:06 AM

Jul 2019

Although there's been many smaller studies on the subject, nobody has done much comprehensive study on the issue because there's exactly zero theoretical causal link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer. HHS spent $25 million on a 10 year study, then instead of submitting it to a credible journal for unbiased peer review, they selected their own "peer review" panel which is extremely dubious. Not surprisingly their conclusions were immediately criticized by not just the scientific community, but the HHS itself.

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

22. Which brings out the conspiracy theorists, sadly...

Reply to Major Nikon (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 09:24 AM

Jul 2019

But with there being no causal link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer, there's not much demand for comprehensive study.

CurtEastPoint

(18,656 posts)

3. Didn't Dump recently tout how great 6G is? F'ing idiot

Reply to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 10:17 AM

Jul 2019

still_one

(92,372 posts)

6. but, but, will I still have dead spots?

Reply to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:09 AM

Jul 2019

Response to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

sl8 This message was self-deleted by its author.

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)

11. "More at link"

Reply to sl8 (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 04:17 PM

Jul 2019

You didn't include a link. but I googled it.

5G E only refers to what AT&T rebranded their 4G
and does not apply to the upcoming 5G.

apples and oranges

Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #11)

sl8 This message was self-deleted by its author.

msongs

(67,438 posts)

10. totally unnecessary for most people nt

Reply to left-of-center2012 (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 02:03 PM

Jul 2019

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)

14. Which is also true for all sorts of emerging technologies

Reply to msongs (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 13, 2019, 11:43 PM

Jul 2019

Once the capability is there, I have no doubt people will find new and innovative ways to utilize it. Someday many of us may find it as indispensable as basic data is today.

True Dough

(17,314 posts)

19. Cars with 300+ horsepower are totally unnecessary for most people

Reply to msongs (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:48 AM

Jul 2019

but they sell well anyway. Some people desire luxuries on the higher end of the scale.

hack89

(39,171 posts)

20. An essential technology for autonomous cars in an urban environment.

Reply to msongs (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 14, 2019, 08:58 AM

Jul 2019

It will also revolutionize telemedicine which would make advanced medical treatments widely available to rural areas.

Reply to this discussion