Cyprus Mail
Letters

Conflicting opinions over 5G

This week, the New York Times penned a report noting that one of the key bits of “evidence” used by those insisting 5G will be harmful wound up not being evidence at all. Since 2000, those professing that wireless signals can cause brain cancer have relied on a chart by physicist Bill P. Curry, proclaiming to show that tissue damage increases with the rising frequency of radio waves.

Curry’s data was widely used to justify removing wireless communications from many schools, reposted repeatedly online by alleged health experts, and even laid the foundation for several lawsuits claiming negative wireless health impacts. It wound up as the foundation for other, broader, but equally shaky theories. The only problem: it was never true. The graph failed to acknowledge that human skin tends to block higher frequencies, making the entire chart inaccurate:

“It doesn’t penetrate,” said Christopher M. Collins, a professor of radiology at New York University who studies the effect of high-frequency electromagnetic waves on humans. Dr. Curry’s graph, he added, failed to take into account “the shielding effect.” You Make the Call: ‘Moving Forward With the American Dream’ in New Jersey Dr. Marvin C. Ziskin, an emeritus professor of medical physics at Temple University School of Medicine, agreed. For decades, Dr. Ziskin explored whether such high frequencies could sow illness. Many experiments, he said, support the safety of high-frequency waves.”

There is also a seedier, deeper rabbit hole with Russian news outlets seem to be enjoying amplifying fear on this subject.

D

TS begs to differ with the above comment

The NYT article is inaccurate for lots of reasons. To start it incorrectly indicates that 5G devices will start at 3000 MHz (3 GHz) when companies have stated that such devices will use frequencies as low as 600MHz.
Contrary to Broad’s assertion that 5G means only high band frequencies, 5G phones, routers, and systems will employ low and mid band (frequencies currently in use) and add in high band – millimeter- spectrum. The reality that frequencies start at 600 MHz and go all the way to 10,000 MHz (100 GHz) is stated by T-Mobile and the CTIA. See https://venturebeat.com/201… and https://api.ctia.org/wp-con…

Broads inaccurate understanding 5G frequencies is why the article is fundamentally flawed as his logic is based on the premise that the skin is a barrier to 5G radiation. The skin absorbs this radiation.

These lower frequencies are absorbed deeply into our brains and bodies, especially children. As the American Academy of Pediatrics has noted in their letters to Congress, the skull of the young child is thinner than that of the adult, the neurons of their developing brains not fully myelinated, and their brains contain more fluid.

As a consequence, the brains of children will absorb proportionally more wireless radiation per exposure than an adult, (see https://www.sciencedirect.c… a point that Curry also makes in his reports.
Researchers investigating the impact to the skin from 5G’s higher millimeter frequencies are “raising the warning flag” on the safety after finding that mmW are absorbed into human sweat ducts that can operate like tiny helical EMF antennas at much higher rates than in surrounding skin structures.

 

 


Related posts

Remembering Ann

CM Guest Columnist

Our View: Green party support for illegal camper beggars belief

CM: Our View

Farmers should always be compensated

CM Reader's View

If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

CyprusMail

Keys to 10 Downing Street for as many years as possible Boris’ main objective

CM Reader's View

Our View: Simple maths should have alerted welfare officials to homeless scam

CM: Our View