RT is PUTIN'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE. Get rid of it and Trump.
15
RT is garbage. However, Mr. Broad's discussion of the research on the health effects of the sub-thermal (millimeter wave) radiation that is a component of 5G telecom technology is cursory and misleading.
After noting the recent federal study in rats that found a possible link to cancer, the article states that "officials discounted a direct link to humans, saying people received smaller doses." However, the NIH's press release (https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm) identifies the specific factors in their study (including dosage) that make it problematic to conclude that RF may cause cancer in humans, yet they explain why their conclusion is nonetheless valid. To say that "officials discounted a direct link to humans" does not usefully contextualize, or clarify, the results of this study.
More generally, Mr. Broad writes that "Over the years, plenty of careful science has scrutinized wireless technology for potential health risks. Virtually all the data contradict the dire alarms, according to public officials, including those at the World Health Organization." But much more research has been done than the article cites or suggests, and a growing consensus among scientists is that, "dire alarms" aside, there may very well be serious health risks connected with 5G technology. Yes, RT is propaganda and their reporting and motives can't be trusted. But when using science to counter RT, don't cite the opinions of "public officials".
26
"Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg welcomes New York Times CEO Mark Thompson at a recent announcement of their 5G joint venture. "
Yes, more studies must be made on the (very) possible dangers of 5G radiation, but the reason many media outlets are not reporting on 5G EMR is that they are working hand in hand with the very communication companies in question.
What these communication tech giants Do Not admit is that while 5G may be technically "safer," it is going to be Added to the existing 4G radiation melange. In other words, we will now be getting hit with radiation from both the low and the high ends of the electro magnetic radiation bandwidth- a perfect radiation sandwich! And sorry guys, 5g Does, in fact, penetrate your skin and internal organs- it does not harmlessly bounce off! And while companies like Verizon assure us that their periodic readings will be well within the safety limits, their readings will in no way whatsoever reflect the real dosage of what we will absorb 24/7, day after day, week after week, year after year as we eat, rest and go about our lives at home. Radiation will continuously bombard our: skin, organs, skull and brain tissue. And let’s not forget that radiation damage is cumulative- permanent and cumulative.
Brussels has halted all 5G EMR because it simply does not meet their radiation safety standards.
The tobacco and opioid companies both repeatedly reassured us that their products were perfectly safe- the refrain echoes anew, “Trust us...”
23
I like how they quote Dr. Marvin C. Ziskin as saying 5G is safer and that the high frequency waves are less harmful, but just before that they show that the higher frequency wave include x-rays and gamma rays, which everyone knows are very harmful. Love the contradiction.
10
@D X and gamma 'rays' are quite different than microwave and radio 'waves' - if you invest a little more time in your internet research you will understand the difference. Keep reading until you realize that you were mistaken - there is actually no contradiction. Just a lack of knowledge on your part!
The higher the frequency of a radio 'wave' - the less it can be absorbed. At the millimeter frequencies planned for 5G, it cannot penetrate past the dermal layer. The waves are reflected rather than absorbed.
11
The reporter has been snowed by the telecom industry. In fact, the US Navy, WHO and literally hundreds of prominent scientists all agree that 5G and other electromagnetic radiation poses a danger to health. (It is true that some of the frequencies are also helpful to health, but that is not the issue here.) For expert guidance, Google National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy in Washington, a think-tank devoted to these questions.
24
This article claims that fracking is not a real danger, but something amplified by the Kremlin to look scary. That is nonsense. Fracking has provable negative effects on water and causes earthquakes. I don’t know much about 5G, but between that and citing a researcher from the free-market AEI think-tank, this article certainly is making me believe it could be dangerous.
25
I read criticisms about 5G over a year ago, someplace like The Intercept. It was not on RT. Anyone who is duped listening to RT deserves whatever they get. I think anyone who stumbles onto RT can probably discern propaganda, which is more than I can say for anyone stumbling onto ANY of our network or cable news, or The Times. I agree with some of the other commentators: don't just believe what tech corporations tell you. Whether the intent is to better society, or profit from it, makes all the difference in the world.
9
"Mr. Fox, the operations chief of New Knowledge, the technology firm, said the network’s aggressive spin on 5G suggests Moscow is less interested in serving the public than dulling Washington’s edge in the global race for the digital future."
Washington's edge in the global race for the digital future? Huh? That "edge", could NOT be duller.
4
Mr. Broad - you are way off base in your 5G article. The wireless community is mimicking the tobacco industry which for 50 years said smoking was safe, good for digestion, had doctors do testimonials. All the while they knew the health dangers. See MERCHANTS OF DOUBT. That's what wireless is doing now. David Carpenter knows his stuff. What proof have you seen that 5G has been tested and safe? Proof that does not come from the industry, bought and paid for research. Standards from FCC go back to 1996. Foreign countries have banned 5G and Smart Meters, etc. You're need to be more skeptical.
35
@Barbara Litrell - I disagree! Mister Broad hit the nail on the head with respect to the science. I'm not sure about Russian motivations. But, like you - they are dead wrong on the science!
There is NO credible evidence of adverse human health effects from exposures below FCC guidelines. NONE!
2
How do we know that RT America is the only network broadcasting in the US that is Russia-directed and spewing lies and propaganda? Is the First Amendment so restrictive that Congress cannot pass legislation forcing such networks to display a continuous banner declaring the broadcast as "warning: propaganda" 24/7/365.
Too many Americans have become vulnerable to fake news and they aren't exclusively Breitbart and FOX viewers.
5
Michael McKean plays Saul's older brother in "Better Call Saul." He is a genius attorney who becomes obsessed with the potential harm of normal electromagnetic radiation. His hysteria becomes so pronounced that he treats cell phone was if they are white hot. Some of the comments here reminded me of him.
5
What references can I check on this?
2
I can totally see Russia meddling in this.You miss a VERY important narrative discovered by our own NSA. Perhaps Russia has a reason for disinformation but our NSA has a very good reason for rejecting huawei 5G dominance in the USA based on current data. 5G isn't our problem. Its running 5G networks under China's control. As far as health concerns regarding non-ionizing radio waves; Current research shows that the tech is safe however we have limited sample data and its has been acknowledged in the scientific community that although we have a descent understanding, we cannot rule out long term health effects so minimizing exposure is still prudent. That does not mean we need to start getting paranoid. It sounds like russia is playing on our wariness of Huawei. As far as IQ declining, we do not test for IQ in schools and the understanding of IQ has evolved. I would also like to point out that IQ is something your born with. There are environmental factors that can be a bane or boon for IQ levels but you are pretty much born with what you got. Intelligence is associated with how smart someone is but not the other way around. That is why we have ignorant geniuses. LOL. I work with some of these people.
6
LOL they conveniently left out whats at the top end of the spectrum where 5G resides, I knew the spectrum looked off without it: Microwaves ftw. Novel therapies ;)
3
OMG, antivax for the tech-phobic set.
RF is not without issues, but it's nowhere near as harmful as some comments claim.
For example: at a local art gallery, one of the artists vehemently argued against providing WiFi, stating that he could feel it and was debilitated by the rays. The gallery owner had me install a pair of wifi hotspots above the ceiling tiles; he never noticed. But when someone's cellphone was sitting on a desk, he would ask that it be put away in an iron desk to block the rays.....
The lack of basic scientific knowledge among Americans is truly terrifying. We're at risk of becoming a cargo cult, using technology without even the faintest idea of the concepts behind it.
18
Methinks the author doth protest too much. As others have pointed out, the problem with 5G is that it is literally going to be everywhere. There is not going to be any way to ever get a break from it. Also, to say that 5G is actually good for you smacks of Monsanto saying that you could drink glyphosate like milk and it wouldn’t hurt you. Years and thousands of lymphoma cases later, we know that isn’t true.
20
@Francesca Exactly. I for one don't want every single item in my life--from my cell phone and computer to my light bulbs and front door and refridgerator--operated by a single network. Talk about making yourself vulnerable.
My question: Is there any way to NOT have your whole life hooked up to 5G (and, thus, China)?
3
The full-on assault on school funding in this country over the last 40 years has contributed catastrophically to intellectual laziness, widespread abysmal ignorance and the willingness of millions of people to believe whatever they are told if it comes across on a tv broadcast or an Internet video. Over-reliance on information and misinformation from talking heads, instead of active reading and research that leads to winnowing out the truth by examining, comparing and contrasting information from various credible sources, has led to a wide swath of our population being gullible. P.T. Barnum stated that there's a sucker born every minute, but it's hard to believe that the pace of that birthrate has increased with the proliferation of propaganda-laden broadcasters like FoxNews, InfoWars, AM talk radio pundits and RT that have combined with the factors I mentioned above to make our populations average knowledge base, and IQ, decline substantially. Ignorance isn't bliss. It's expensive, and our whole society is paying the price.
10
@NewYorker6699 honestly there ignorant uneducated person(as it pertains to this subject) here is you. Can you tell me the wave length in the top end of the GHZ radio spectrum and then tell me the size of the wavelengths used by the Active Denial System, a non-lethal direct energy weapon used by our military and why that wavelength is key in its use as a physical deterrent....? here I'll save you the time, mm wavelengths, although various in size as you go up and down the spectrum. Example: one talked about freq. for 5G is 48GHz which has a wavelength of 6.2mm now that might not seem so bad, but they have proposed all the way up to between 81-86GHz, that's around 3.5mm small! Why is that getting concerning? So the function of such a small wavelength in the ADS system (operates around 95Ghz) which is 1mm wavelength, is it will penetrate the top layer of human skin(side note will fully penetrate a babys eyelids) to cause pain and irritation.......this doesn't even begin go down the rabit hole of antennas and focusing these energies (amplifying them) to focus them in certain directions because mm waves are actually kinda fickle. But do i really need to explain all this to someone so educated as yourself?
https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/5g-spectrum-guide/
https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/5g-wavelengths-from-blankets-to-bullets/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
There was also an interesting study on this done in Israel about our sweat glands.
6
My guess: the Russians are trying to postpone 5G deployment in the West because they haven't yet figured out how to hack it.
11
Seems to me this entire episode is just another "tempest in a teapot". As far as I know, there is yet to be built the first 5g radio tower in the USA. So far, it is only a marketing ploy, meant to foist even more expensive cell phones on an unsuspecting public -- even though in most of the country, even 4g will not work, due to the lack of broadcasting towers.
3g is still a luxury for folks out in the country, and it only works on extremely clear days, in direct line of sight of a tower.
I suspect all this is just another ploy to direct attention away from the damage that tRump and company have already done to our way of life. Yep, I'm pretty confident in that.
6
@Tom Cotner wrong, its available in a few test cities, you can buy a hot spot from att right now.
1
This seems irresponsible, although much of that may be the unfortunate headline. The Cornell memo that supposedly stands for the proposition that 5G is harmless hardly supports that view. It should be possible for the NYT to call out a disinformation campaign without disseminating its own. 5G deserves more study. It may be harmless, but that's hardly been demonstrated.
12
@KJB Thank you for realizing this. There is a lot of info that hasnt come from RT - and even that info was garnered by interviewing other American sources.
2
We could use some reporting into how Russia provides support to leftist environmentalist groups who oppose fracking, drilling, and pipelines.
I going to go out on a limb and guess they spent more there and with greater return than the few hundred grand on Facebook ads they placed in 2016.
But in that case, Russia is aligned with America's leftists so I expect the media will be complicit in the coverup, as per usual.
As stated in this article, the fact the New York Times has entered into a joint venture with Verizon leads me to question the motives for this article which advances a view favorable to the corporations proposing the 5G technology. Many U.S. experts warn about the hazards posed by it. All you have to do is google it.
20
Perhaps someone could explain then why the incidence of brain cancers have risen in line with the usage of smart phones.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098028/
9
@Ethel Ummm... the study report you've linked here states clearl - more than once - that the incidence of brain cancers has been very slowly declining for nearly 30 years.
"Overall, brain cancer incidence rates have declined since the early 1990s."
It emphasizes this fact with the very first figure presented to illustrate the trend. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098028/figure/NOQ077F1/
18
@Michael M - Here is a more recent graphic showing the downward trend of brain cancer in the US. As wireless use increases - brain cancer decreases!
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html
12
That is the essence of solid scientific research.
3
RT’s use of propaganda to disrupt American society is not unlike the acts of Rupert Murdoch’s organization. Fox News and his British propaganda outlets have been spewing false information for a long time in order to discredit anything liberal and progressive. Like RT, Murdoch thinks its OK to tell lies in order to promote his own extremist world view.
10
Did you know the current 4G cell phone band overlaps microwave ovens (~2.5 GHz) and we all know what happens when you put your head in a microwave oven.
No wonder those people with iPhones stuck to their heads act so weird. Congealed brains!
Bur 5G won't cook your brains directly and it will be so much better to have all those self driving cars running over pedestrians and bikers as well as the government and NGO drones and spy devices flying around.
And - the range of 5G is much shorter than 4G and earlier iterations. So we can have more cell transducers disguised as trees or mounted on the town water tower.
Such a brave new world.
Turn off that phone!
9
Apparently we don't all know what happens when you stick your head in a microwave. It isn't high-frequency ionizing radiation which hurts you. It is the extreme intensity of microwave radiation used to cook food. Microwave radiation is not harmful in itself. You would get burned by a high dose of microwave radiation a long time before any lethal effects could occur.
4
@Benjo - Exactly right! There is a HUGE difference between a 1,000 Watt microwave oven and a 250 milliwatt cellphone!
4
Here we go again with the jingoistic Russia baiting by the NYT, etc al. Do I trust RT? Of course not, just as much as I distrust the NYT! I seem to recall 'reporting' about all the articles about dangers of brain cancer due to cell phones. Shrug. Sometimes I find reports on RT, BBC, DM, etc. (all of which represent their respective rulers, like the NYT) to be interesting, sometimes accurate, and always useful for telling me the interests and opinions of their rulers. I also read the propaganda in NYT, Breitbart, Washington Post, WSJ, China Daily, Asahi Shimbun, etc. Far more damage has been done to the American people by the 'reponsible reporting' of the NYT, el al., on WMD, and endless other pro-war lies (Tonkin, etc.) that cost untold lives, than any "foreign" press or propaganda. I don't want the NYT, Breitbart or the US government telling me what to read or how to think about anything.
6
What caught my attention in this article is the passing disclosure that the NYT has entered into "a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab."This in my view, poses a vey questionable conflict of interest for the NYT to be covering this story and making a case agreeable to the providers of the 5G technology. The premise advanced here that the Russians are running a disinformation campaign seems preposterous. Sounds like an idea cooked up in the corporate boardroom of Verizon. One of the photos illustrating this article, though not identified by name, features Dr.Martin Pall, one of the foremost experts in the U.S.A. about the hazards of electromagnetic radiation. As someone who is deeply involved in this subject, I question the motives of this article.
22
Incredibly inaccurate and irresponsible story. It needs to be retracted. The growing opposition to 5G has nothing to do with Russia -- it has everything to do with the very real and very serious dangers to the public's health, especially children. The allegation made here suggesting this is a phony concern cooked up by the Russian government are appalling. Do you really think Brussels banned 5G because of those sneaky Russians? So disappointed in the NY Times for printing this.
31
Search "5g danger" without "RT" and you'll see this has been talked about for years. Welcome to the party, NYT. I always wondered who watched RT.
7
@Ellen Exactly - I was thinking the same thing.
There have been many studies in recent years indicating damage to human health, including male fertility, by wireless technology. Many studies are listed on the website of the Environmental Health Trust.https://ehtrust.org/science/research-on-wireless-health-effects/
The prospective deployment of 5G is an excellent opportunity to scrutinize the health effects of, not only, this new cell phone technology but all wireless exposure. However, the fact that Congress prohibited discussion of health concerns in the placement of cell towers in the 1996 Telecommunication Act, Section 704 raises doubt as to whether we can rely on our government to conduct this investigation in an honest manner.
I am surprised that the New York Times is attempting to shut down the needed investigation and discussion of the huge health issue posed by the introduction of 5G - a process that should occur before 5G deployment, not after.
20
Could it be that the NYT has omitted its conflicts of interest by not sharing that it has invested heavily in 5G with Verizon? https://www.verizon.com/about/news/hans-vestberg-keynotes-2019-consumer-electronics-show. This article, a "hit piece" on the thousands of studies showing harm from microwave radiation, is full of innuendo and misleading statements, designed to convince Americans 5G is good for them and not to believe anything to the contrary. The New York Times, as a result, has lost my trust, likely, forever.
14
@S Brinch - You need to work on your reading comprehension skills Susan. The article clearly identified the NYT/Verizon collaboration. And statements that don't fit with your paranoid delusions are neither misleading nor innuendo. This was a well written and factual article that rational people should appreciate and learn from. What do independent experts think about the current state of science: http://www.ices-emfsafety.org/expert-reviews/
1
Would rather not have more cell towers around my home. Is there really a need for home appliance connected via internet?
10
Dixie cups and string could be a safer alternative but I read somewhere the string is a choking hazard and the cups can be used to hold whiskey and contributes to D.U.I.s.
7
RT on-air is the only news I can watch for free,
since I don't have a tv and don't have cable.
Same for most people in my building.
So don't blame me if I am RT-educated, RT-informed with RT-values.
This article asks us to discount the results of tests on rats. Why, then, are rats ever used for tests?
Some comments refer to 'animals and humans'. For God's sake - humans ARE animals. If rats are affected, humans will be.
6
@J - The issue with the NTP study using mice and rats was exposing these animals up to 125 times the FCC maximum permitted exposure for humans. There is no denying that EMF at very high exposures could cause tissue damage in humans and other animals. However, this is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that the exposures to humans from Wi-Fi, smartmeters, cellphones, etc. are capable of doing this. NONE!
5
I am disappointed in the Times for this article, which too simply dismisses a very real issue over which the public, yet again, lacks control or even a voice in its own trajectory into the future. It is already such a struggle to fight back against big money doing anything to try and get bigger, at the expense of all else. The 5G issue is just another example of that. It almost doesn't even matter what any source, reputable or not, says about this issue -- the real problem here is that huge wireless companies are being allowed to roll out technologies practically in secret, without consent from the public, and without conducting any tests for safety. Why should the public assume that 5G is "safe" given what we already know FOR SURE about current cell phone frequencies and all other types of radiation? I'm not fooled for a second.
Here is a good article about what's really going on:
https://www.thefoghornexpress.com/single-post/The-5G-Network-What-You-Dont-Know-Can-Kill-You
I love the NYT because I generally see it as a voice of truth and reason. But not in this case. I hope it stops printing articles that only help to pull the wool over our eyes so that huge corporations can continue their takeover and complete enslavement of the people at the expense of our bodies and minds, and at the expense of the planet that we are desperately trying to figure out how to save.
12
I heard they're giving out vaccinations to protect against 5G.
6
Everything this article says about RT America might be true. I don't know. But beyond that, that RT American might be a politically motivated attempt to disrupt the USA says absolutely nothing about the safety of 5G. Scientific verification often lags industrial application ... thalidomide, BPE, asbestos to name a few. Cells phones give my wife headaches. A friend of ours can stand next to you and tell you if your phone is on airplane mode. Until we learn how to listen to the most sensitive among us, we will continue to numb each other down until we're all blinded, deafened and dumb.
5
I get that we live in a propaganda-filled world, & Russia has planted a lot of stories that have caused divisiveness &worse. But I felt very uncomfortable reading this article. The studies aren't there + I am very concerned with the movement that these towers can go up without community input. There IS evidence that wi-fi overall is cause for concern. Other countries HAVE taken a hard stance on this.
"The conversation about 5G within the mainstream is becoming quite concerning for onlookers, as there’s been an increase in awareness about the health concerns of wireless radiation. Sure, there are natural sources of electromagnetic radiation on both ends of the spectrum in our environment, but never before has humanity experienced this much. The main reason why this is so concerning is because “Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects.” (Dr. Sharon Goldberg, 5G Small Cell Tower Hearing In Michigan)
The true source of the propaganda in this case is not Russia but US lobbyists, trying to pull a fast one.
This is a good piece aired locally that gives some background: https://youtu.be/61h_vuBujw0
8
Thank you for this article, NYT. As an electrical engineer who focused (way too much of my time) on high frequency transmission, I instinctively knew this claim to be dubious when it appeared as a billboard on the telephone pole across my street.
I have printed out the most critical points, referenced your article, and will post it alongside.
It's easy to scare people with things that are difficult to understand. Your article helps "clear the air", so to speak.
12
@Kevin An electgrical engineer. So what? You havent read the literature, except for the pro side - and of course you would. Its your trade.
2
The real disinformation is this article. Of course cell phone radio waves are harmful, and 5G will greatly compound the harm. We do not have any good science on this because the industry is enormously powerful. I ask whether this writer would gladly place her family in close proximity to a cell phone tower. 5G will bring many more, and more powerful towers. Add this to the router/wifi pollution already bombarding us and we have a another health crisis coming. Russia actually leads America in general: healthy exercise, their nutrition is far more healthy with few fast food outlets and far less processed food. Obesity is a fraction of what it is in the US. We should not just dismiss everything coming from Russia.
17
@Duggy
Americans are fatter than Russians, but I think most would agree that death is the final arbiter, and it comes 12 to 13 years sooner for Russians:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Health
Meanwhile it remains a universal truth that people's use of "obviously" and "of course" correlates negatively with their ability to actually seek out accurate information and weigh evidence.
8
@Duggy
Please cite any reputable scientific studies proving radio waves are harmful. I doubt you’ll find any.
8
@Duggy Could it be that the NYT has omitted its conflicts of interest by not sharing that it has invested heavily in 5G with Verizon? https://www.verizon.com/about/news/hans-vestberg-keynotes-2019-consumer-electronics-show. This article, a "hit piece" on the thousands of studies showing harm from microwave radiation, is full of innuendo and misleading statements, designed to convince Americans 5G is good for them and not to believe anything to the contrary. The New York Times, as a result, has lost my trust, likely, forever.
3
So far it’s not clear internet access is anything close to an unalloyed good. We already have unprecedented access to information, but most people appear to have limited powers to separate the wheat from the chaff. Add in reckless purveyors of misinformation, and it’s hard to argue people are any smarter or well informed than they were in the 1970’s. In those days we had just three broadcast networks combined with profitable newspapers in most every city.
(It’s also appropriate to mention that eliminating the fairness and equal time doctrines during the Reagan administration set the stage for our current disinformation silos.)
Instead, our new tech masters are busy finding ways for their screens to capture and monetize our interest 24/7. And purveyors of misinformation happily use the same tools. Simply speeding up that access via handheld devices may just pour gasoline on a bad problem. And that ignores the price premium consumers will be forced to pay for new 5G devices and the speediest internet. All that to get instant access to the most emotionally salient ‘news’ feeds, advertising, and occasional cat videos.
I’m far more worried about the impact of misinformation and turbocharged consumerism on humans who never evolved to withstand instant access to highly appealing visuals. The small or zero risk of radio waves pales in comparison.
7
As I understand it, the implementation of a 5G network will require the placement of more, smaller “towers” closer in proximity to one another. This, of course, will take time, but will also mean a higher level of visibility across our shared landscape.
2
"This ... will also mean a higher level of visibility across our shared landscape."
Microcells can be mounted on existing utility poles or on the sides of buildings. The problem is that microcells need power and network connectivity, so somebody has to pay for those services.
Further, microcells are less robust in a power outage, because they cannot be automatically backed up with a generator.
2
@Andre Hoogeveen As a result of these closer towers, our health will suffer, if this dangerous plan moves forward. Science is clear on this, as well as those who've experienced the harm first-hand, as have I.
4
@S Brinch - The science is clear alright. But, it is not what you claim.
There is ZERO credible scientific evidence of adverse health effects from exposures below the FCC guidelines. ZERO!
Anecdotal stories are not scientific evidence.
http://www.ices-emfsafety.org/expert-reviews/
3
This is similar to the microwave tower scares. However this scare and the microwave scare might be accurate. Particularly if made in China.
Maybe this article is the fake news.....promoted by the phone companies and manufacturers.
6
NYT: Where is the science? This article amounts to he said she said!
All those cheering the article would cheer anything anti-Russia. Let us use our brains. 5G & 6G are inevitable, but safeguards may be in order (for example with respect to the placement of cell towers over elementary schools, as is the case in my town in NJ)
12
@Professor Ice, Not inevitable. We can stop it. Brussels did. If you are against it (and we all should be) but concede it's inevitable then you don't realize the power you have.
1
"The National Agency ANFR of France recently released the cell phone SAR test data for 450 cell phones that measure 10-g SARs reducing by 10%–30% for each millimeter distal placement from the planar body phantom. Their data corroborate our findings that most cell phones will exceed the safety guidelines when held against the body by factors of 1.6–3.7 times for the European/ICNIRP standard or by factors as high as 11 if 1-g SAR values were to be measured as required by the U.S. FCC."
This is an abstract from one of scores of studies that question RF safety claims. And readers should note, the last time I checked the French National Agency was not designated as a pawn of Vladimir Putin.
But according to the Times if RT ran this story the science should be disregarded as Russian propaganda.
So if you don't like the message, kill the messenger? What kind of journalism is that?
19
@Drspock
That's the exact point: RT *doesn't* use that study, nor any others. They rely on one or two 'experts' who weren't involved with those studies, and perhaps aren't even aware those studies exist to draw 'the sky is falling' conclusions based on mostly anecdotal data and their own dubious opinions on the matter.
Ask yourself this: if 5G and RF in general were so damaging then why is Russia trying their best to also deploy it?
8
“The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say. The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain.”
By the logic of this sentence, are X-rays and Gamma rays, which lie in the high frequency range, safe? If you want to support the corporate agenda of hooking more people, children especially, on cell phones, then 5G is great. Most of the extra capacity is not going to be used for useful endeavors like saving lives or medicine. It is mostly going to be exploited by Google and Facebook for spreading HD videos of useless content.
8
According to an article published last year in the Nation magazine about cell phones and 5G, "the World Health Organization classifies cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen." The article, "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation" goes on to state that cautionary findings reported by the Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), "were replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children."
14
@Bob
Bacon is also a 'possible carcinogen'. In fact, the average person consumes or comes in contact with literally dozens of 'possible carcinogens' every day.
The phrase itself is statistically meaningless.
10
@Bob - The article you cite was penned by two people with no background in science or risk assessment. And was later thoroughly refuted by an actual scientist – one with relevant credentials and experience! Checking out the rebuttal argument would add some balance to your understanding of this issue. Please click on the following link:
https://tinyurl.com/y84tpktw
(1) Observation: X-rays and Gamma rays lie at the highest end of frequency spectrum
(2) Quote from NY times: "The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say. The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain."
From (1) and (2), should we infer that X-rays and Gamma rays are safe? Note that I am not claiming that 5G is unsafe but the utter lack of logical consistency with NY Times writing. Is RT really that worse than NY times?
8
It only applies to radio waves. Visible light also has a higher frequency than radio waves. Visible light is not unsafe. This is no "gotcha" moment but a lack of a scientific context.
8
"Over the past two weeks, major marketers have appeared on RT's website, promoting brands like P&G's Gillette, Ford, Honda, Walmart, Warby Parker, Honeywell."
https://adage.com/article/digital/p-g-ford-plenty-brands-ads-flowing-rt-s-site/310768
Good info to start the Boycott of RT (Russia Television), the propoganda arm of V. Putin (AKA Stalin redux).
3
Moscow can't develop anything of the same caliber, so they have to play spoiler to other successful countries. The same thing they do with democracies.
10
@Chris Democracies are the next step to socialism. You really need to take a look at history closer. In fact, you should know that the US was never intended to be a democracy. Read Federalist Paper #10.
1
Back in the real world, here's the story unfolding in Vermont: January, AT&T and Verizon testify to a Senate committee that 5G is not coming to Vermont any time soon. Fast forward to yesterday when numerous utility pole antennas were photographed in Burlington neighborhoods, installed after being permitted by the Public Utility Commission with zero public process. Their project narratives state "the Project also allows AT&T to prepare for implementation of newer technologies— including 5G capabilities, “smart cities” and new developments in the Internet of Things (“IoT”)."
Antennas being placed on towers 100 to 300 feet tall have a maximum frequency of 2690 mhz, while the antennas being put on utility poles next to people's homes go up to 5950 mhz.
No Russians involved here, folks, just industry not being truthful, eh? This article is probably the result of Verizon's financial relationship with the NY Times, trying to shut down public discourse rather than explore the very real problems this technology introduces. But then, Congress and President Clinton already did that in 1996 by putting into law that people cannot talk about the health issues associated with electromagnetic and radio frequencies.
We don't need Russians to threaten our democracy, it's already happened since Congress sold out to industry.
32
An article about the influence of a foreign news channel in American should not result in reducing a legitimate inquiry and timely debate about the potential adverse impacts of a fast deployment of 5G technology. How many people know that the 1996 Telecommunication Act forbids environmental claims to be even raised? As a result, the question of safety got sidelined, research underfunded with not enough data to prove safety (please check US Senate Hearing 2/19/2019 on the future of 5G wireless communication for example). Has anyone read the warning sent by the Lancet scientific magazine on this? (Vol 2, Issue 12, Dec 01, 2018).
These links challenge the assertion that "over the years, plenty of careful science has scrutinized wireless technology for potential health risks. Virtually all the data contradict the dire alarms".
To go the opposite route, as the article does, not do good to your trustful readers. Pinning the concerns as a Russian hoax discourages from investigating further a very complex subject. Thank you for allowing my voice to be heard as well.
12
@Marie-Pierre
The 1996 act does NOT "forbid environmental claims." Instead, it provides a means for a telecom to supersede local regulations - which may be NIMBY and are seldom based on hard science - as long as the equipment deployed meets Federal regulations. The relevant section is below.
"Regulations Based On Environmental Effects of RF Emissions Preempted
Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
Review: Parties may seek relief from the FCC if they are adversely affected by a state or local government's final action or failure to act that is inconsistent with this provision. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v)."
1
I'm certainly not supportive I've Russian disinformation but I wonder whether they're onto something.. I recently heard that the 5G transmission method is based on microwaves unlike our current technology. Whether that's problematic or not is not clear given that the test for harm is very weak under our current regulations. The test is whether it creates an increase in temperature. Clearly that's an untrustworthy industry-influenced measure of harm,
4
"... the 5G transmission method is based on microwaves unlike our current technology."
5G adds a new band in the 26 GHz to 28 GHz frequency range.
See the Wikipedia article, "5G NR frequency bands", for a detailed table of 5G frequencies.
And see the Wikipedia article "Electromagnetic spectrum" for a table showing frequencies, wavelengths, and band names.
7
@Mark adams
“You recently heard”
Really? From who?
Credible source (like science or medical)?
Or Alex Jones?
It is not based on microwaves. Learn how this stuff works.
It’s micro millimeter wavelength tech.
That is not the same thing as microwave.
I hope you don’t have a WiFi router in your house, that thing specs out more dangerous radiation. Constantly.
9
thanks I appreciate hearing more about this issue. I heard about it from a chiropractic physician who reportedly had other sources. but I'll look into what you've indicated is the true source of the transmission energy. Thanks again
Cell phone companies spend tens of millions advertising their product on TV and in news print. Could that have impacted how this issue is being covered?
History shows that we are very quick to put a product in the market, usually relying on industry studies and then very slow to remove it despite the evidence of harm.
The entire field of "consumer protection" was created because our government was failing to provide protection to the public.
Whether it was the impact of DDT revealed by Rachael Carson in 1960 or the dangers of the Ford Pinto revealed by Ralph Nader in 1965 or the many drugs that have caused unnecessary deaths, media which benefits from industry advertising has a long record of ignoring those dangers when they are first revealed.
The critics of 5G do not claim to have proof that it is unsafe, but they do show that many of the industry studies are flawed and don't prove that 5G is safe.
Industry also avoids the crucial question, how much RF can we be exposed to before it crosses the safe threshold?
You might be able to limit your own personal use, but if there is a 5G transmitter outside your apartment window you will be exposed no matter what you do.
Lastly, 5G, like any RF radiation has a cumulative impact over time. We simply don't know what the impact children using devices will be when they are in their 30's. If we put this on the market now by then it may be too late.
11
When my current iPhone 5 dies, I’m going back to a flip phone. One need not develop cancer to make the point that these devices are bad in every way. Why exactly do we need the national intelligence in our homes with access to personal communications? What about the environmental cost of extracting the heavy metals to make these gadgets work? What about the environmental costs to dispose of them for seven billion people? Truly we’re toast and not a moment too soon. Fertility problems? Bring it. People are something we don’t need more of if this is all they contribute to the planet.
3
@Ericka
You do realize that a flip phone has ALL the same issues you brought up as an iPhone?
Where is the benefit?
10
@Ericka
A flip phone generates just as much RF as a smartphone.
3
5G is the super highway while 4G is like driving a horse and buggy. The impact on every sector of our lives will be enormous. Huawei, China’s largest internet company will be the first to implement this technology, which is one reason their CEO was arrested in Canada earlier this year.
They are already everywhere in the Middle East, Africa and Europe.
All this says is we are willing to use black mail and extortion in tandem with the Russians who have no chance of outrunning China, to appease Putin and garner a Trump tower footprint in Moscow.
4
@H.A. Hyde1 the CEO was arrested for industrial espionage, not because of 5G.
4
That's what they'd have you believe. This entire spy-baiting campaign against HuaWei is nothing more than protectionist dirty politics to supress a competitor. I'm more concerned about the NSA spying on us in collusion with the US dotcom industry and cell phone manufacturers, which is actually proven, unlike allegations against HuaWei.
A double hit; yes espionage, but in a competitive race to the top, this would have happened anyway. To ignore that fact is ignoring China’s inevitable rise and our own incompetence in preparing ourselves for the 21st Century. America is the master of bullying but not of implementation.
1
When you fail at exporting revolution, you then try exporting propaganda and disinformation. So far Russia is way more successful at the latter, helped massively by the big, free to use propaganda apparatuses called YouTube or Facebook. The fact that RT is allowed to set studios and operate freely in the Western Democracies simply boggles the mind. This is The Cold War 2.0. And we’re losing it.
3
Maybe the hazards are only present if your're standing near a wind farm?
5
Long before the 5G issue, cellular was condemned in the book WHEN SMOKE RAN LIKE RAIN by Derva Davis. This environmental scientists noted as she ended the terrifying expose, that soon there would be no group of 'normals' to make comparisons with thereby eliminating any chance of obtaining verification of damage. Thus making the charge of scientists using each others data true.
There is no 'next big thing' , household batteries still lag, no effective car battery exists is the reason why electric cars are still pending, there is no fusion altho we will be sold 'nuclear' as safe yet again, and research using Chernobyl wildlife will be used to mitigate the deadly radiation as soon science will claim no damage during our 75 year life span.
1
Can anyone explain how wireless connections via wifi, bluetooth are different from LTE? How are different wireless technologies different from each other?
1
@Frieda Vizel
They quite simply operate within different radio frequency ranges. For example, WiFi actually operates in the same frequency as home cordless telephones, which is why sometimes having the phone's base station next to a WiFi router can cause interference.
3
"How are different wireless technologies different from each other?"
There are whole books on the subject*, so it would help you could be more specific about what you want to know and at what technical level.
From a high-level perspective, they differ in the frequency bands used, the power emitted, and the protocols they carry.
In particular, cell phones use much higher powers than wifi or bluetooth.
Also, cell phone service usually costs money, while wifi and bluetooth do not (aside from the cost of the equipment).
* Search for "wireless communications" at an online bookseller.
2
Incriminating RT in this debate is too simple. Indeed there are a lot of studies tending to prove that 5G will be more harmful than 2/3/4 G. With these latter technologies you are generally 30 to 500 meters from one, two or three antennas. 5G, with its higher frequency, hence shorter range, requires a huge density of antennas: you will be surrounded quite everywhere by a set of antennas 10 to 30 meters from you. And, if the 5G "promises" are attained, you will be surrounded 24h/24 by a population of humans or connected objects receiving/emitting 5G radiowaves. Question: would you let your children live, work, eat, sleep in places filled by a dozen of WiFi antennas always on? That's a similar question with 5G. Everybody should consider calmly this question before sweeping it disdainfully.
20
I'll never forgive or forget how RT used so-called "experts" to hurl thinly-veiled racists remarks about then-candidate Barack Obama on its network. I stopped watching at that point. Also, anyone who hires incompetent Rick Sanchez to do anything resembling news after he flopped at CNN doesn't deserve my respect.
5
Paragraph eight: “In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab.”
Conflict of interest.
17
@Bunk McNulty
Correction: it would've been a conflict if they didn't mention that. But by disclosing it they at least allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
7
Yes this article looks pretty much like propaganda and as i posted full of obvious false claims like that higher frequencies are less penetrating than lower frequencies. UV xrays and gamma rays can all cause cancers and they do. Just think at the melanomas if the skin for UV.
6
No, Mur. Higher frequency RADIO waves are less harmful than lower frequency radio waves. In no way does this apply to the whole electromagnetic spectrum, nor is that what they claim.
6
Where is the empirical evidence on learning disabilities in children and cancer? The 5G is just being rolled out so where did they get to do this study?
3
@Wayne The phone companies have been placing 5G radio transmitters in people's homes for almost 2 years under the guise of it "boosting" your data speeds. I got talked into taking one. They didn't mention it was a radio frequency transmitter, but I am energy sensitive and work with frequencies. Within 1 minute of it activating, I felt a vice like squeezing in my brain, was dizzy and couldn't focus. I turned it off and it took 10 minutes for the symptoms to subside.
The 5G short wave radio frequencies disrupt the natural electromagnetic frequencies of the body. Anything that disrupts the body's "operating frequencies" is going to result in breakdown of the body.
5
@AJ - You may be confusing 5G for smartphones with 5GHz for Wi-Fi. NO 5G equipment has been placed in anyone's home!
3
I don't doubt that Russia may be engaged in propaganda and misinformation. But I am also someone who thinks that we shouldn't be in such a hurry to speed everything up, as inevitable as it may be. And there is a disorder among the population of people who are sensitive to EMF's. Smart-meters are the cause of some people's complaints. School children have been known to be affected by Wifi. There was one study where a student observed the effect of Wifi on plants and it was seen to be detrimental to the growth of seedlings (they didn't grow at all as I recall). The fact that this kind of radiation is seen as acceptable only shows the degree of insensitivity some people have. Or lack of awareness may be a better way to describe that ignorance. We enjoy nature because of its purity and the absence of such pollution. The therapeutic effect of being in nature can help one understand the detrimental effect of being in the environment that humans create. Google "Gabriel Cousens" and "5G" for a holistic healer's viewpoint (Someone who has helped people with human caused disease such diabetes). The mainstream view is not always correct and history will reveal this to be so in this case too I believe. Don't forget there are those who still claim global warming is not to be worried about and that we should continue burning fossil fuel.
9
There is no such thing as EMF sensitivity. It is a fake illness, like adrenal fatigue and chronic Lyme disease. There is no doubt that sufferers are suffering, but it has nothing to do with wifi or cellphones.
10
@SD
Were children also affected by cordless telephones, which have been ubiquitous for the last 20+ years?
Because WiFi operates in the same frequency bandwidth.
Correlation is not causation.
8
Well I know a few people who claim they suffer from it. And on the web there are a lot more, so I'm not sure why you are so confident it doesn't exist. I do know someone who suffers from Lyme disease and it doesn't seem to be an acute case; it is an ongoing battle for him.
I don't believe this assumption of the article that RT is doing everything it can to harm the US. It is just trying to make itself relevant. One of its favorite strategies is to pick up subjects about which many people care but which are hardly visible in the mainstream media. Phone radiation is such an issue.
One can argue who is right. But the Times is doing some bogus science itself when it claims that higher frequencies are less harmful because they penetrate the human body less. It fails to note that that means that more of it is absorbed by the body - with unknown effects.
It should be noted that there are other harmful effects of 5G that have nothing to do with radiation: trees are cut on a massive scale as they hinder the reach of the antennas.
6
@Wim Roffel - The mmW frequencies contemplated for 5G will NOT be absorbed into the body. It will be reflected by the dermal layer! Google it!
3
@Tom Whitney 5G is deadly. YOU Google it!
It is plausible that RT might be right. Why? First, because we now know that Exxon and Shell researchers foresaw the impact of fossil fuel and launched a massive disinformation campaign on their findings.... and because we now have a government that has politicized scientific findings in a way that benefits corporate America... and we have government agencies who are bending over backward to help tech companies increase their profits at all costs. Who's to say that these high tech profiteers aren't offering disinformation the same way Exxon and Shell did? And, if they ARE obfuscating scientific facts what government agency will stand up to them?
5
The flaw in your analogy is that there is publicly available peer-reviewed scientific information showing that manmade CO2 is harmful to the planet, and Exxon and others have sowed disinformation to hide or refute that fact. In this case, the available scientific information says that 5G is safe, and RT is the only one saying it's not. Use your noggin.
10
@WFGersen false equivalence here between 5G and oil. Between 1983 and 2012 Esso sponsored and published 53 peer reviewed climate studies. The majority of them, explicitly or implicitly agreed on anthropogenic climate change. None of those studies denied it.
5
It is amazing how the Russians haven’t changed even their tactics since the Khrushchev era. Back then they sponsored “Wars of National Liberation” in the third world which was in the midst of throwing off colonial rule. These wars consisted of a great deal of misinformation and a small amount of financial aid and weapons assistance, enough to support small guerrilla groups and set off small wars. It worked, sort of. In JFK’s Moon Shot Speech delivered to a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961, Kennedy called for more funding for Polaris subs, more hours of Radio America broadcasting to the third world, reorganizing the Army and Marines, and funding to begin the Space Race. The Russians went broke with space and Reagan later reprised the trick with Star Wars. Russia didn’t learn a thing. It still has a rickety economy, a declining population, and can’t export more than raw materials because its kleptocrats can’t organize anything like innovation or growth. Putin should be careful.
10
One of the most highly recommended comments states, "A quick Google search on the subject [of 5g] reveals mostly nonsense and fear mongering."
Isn't it the case that a quick Google search on anything more complex than "What does 2+2 equal?" reveals mostly nonsense and fear mongering?
6
Good grief, now all the minions will be dressing like Chuck McGill while not vaccinating their kids and being afraid of tomatoes.
6
It's unfortunate that this article so narrowly focues on conflating Russian propaganda with the pros and cons of 5G technology. But then, such are the times we live in, the era of the Trump presidency and alleged collusion (I'll let the Special Counsel's report speak for itself). Actually, there is considerable debate about 5G and its "side effects," which are taking place in the reputable scientific literature, not RT. Consider this article in Nature, "Global 5G wireless networks threaten weather forecasts" (Nature 569, 17-18 (2019) doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01305-4). One can see this potential problem in the very nice NYT graphic comparing the electromagnetic spectra and the overlapping satellite communications.
6
@math365 5G short wave radio frequencies are dangerous to the human body. They disrupt the bodies own frequencies. Please read my comment. I had one of these 5G transmitters in my home. Within 1 minute I had major symptoms. While I AM energy sensitive, that just means I was aware of what the 5G radio frequencies were doing before someone else would be.
5G needs a density of transmitters due to the short radio waves. The transmitters are being put in people's living space. How many homes will need to have these dangerous transmitters disrupting the natural function of bodies?
4
What are "the body's own frequencies" and how does 5G impact them when no previous network has? You had symptoms of what? 5G signals only affected you when a device that can pick them up entered your home and not when the actual 5G network went live? Hmm.
4
@Jake Jortles I believe he is referring to a researcher at the Hebrew University who has determined that human sweat ducts act like helical antennas tuned to 5G frequencies. With millions of such sweat ducts, the human body is like a 5G phased array antenna, sucking up radio spectrum and frying DNA.
This is a deeply confusing passage: “U.S. intelligence agencies identified the network as a principal meddler in the 2016 presidential election. Now, *it* is linking 5G signals to brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease — claims that lack scientific support.”
Is the *it* here US intelligence agencies? If so, which? And why are they saying?
2
"It" is the RT network mentioned in the previous sentence. As the phrase "U.S. intelligence agencies" is plural, it's not a possible antecedent for the pronoun "it." There is only one possibility. The sentence is unambiguous.
2
I don't care WHO says this. It needs to be said and paid attention to. The 5G phones won't harm you, but the 5G radio frequencies absolutely will! The human body cannot be in proximity of these short wave radio frequencies. It disrupts the natural frequencies of the body. When that happens, illness happens.
5G Networks are composed of many transmitters in a small space. Because they can't be subject to the elements, they are put inside people's homes. Phone companies give them to customers for free to "boost the signal" for faster speeds and stronger connections.
I was talked into taking one of these boxes. I placed it near my window as instructed and followed instructions to activate it. I was told that my box would be also boosting the signals of all my neighbors. I was the neighborhood 5G transmitter (they didn't say those words, but I figured it out).
I am an energy healer and sensitive to tuning into energy frequencies. When I turned this thing on within 1 minute I felt like something was squeezing my brain. I felt dizzy and like something was disrupting the electromagnetic frequencies within my body. I couldn't focus. That is when I realized that it was transmitting radio frequencies.
My phone company hadn't told me that, nor that it was a 5G radio transmitter, because they knew I wouldn't put one in my home if I knew what it was. I spoke to a company tech guy who confirmed it was a 5G radio transmitter. 5G frequencies are dangerous to humans.
6
@AJ "Energy Healer" meaning what exactly? What are "Energy Frequencies"?
4
1. What are, “the natural frequencies or the body,” please?
2. Why are you using Wifi and a computer, then?
4
@Reader The human body has an energy system. The heart generates the strongest field. It's not just a pump and its field is not there just for the convenience of medical personnel to measure. The brain runs via electrical impulses, as does our nervous system and all of our cells. Embryonic growth is electrically controlled. We are electrical, energetic beings. The Western medical focus on biochemical research and treatment has blinded us to the marvel of our energy system, and to the damage that man-made energies wreak on it. An energy healer works with the energy system, and though that modality seems "woo-woo" to many in the West, the East has used it for millennia.
3
....and in the meantime Russia is building it’s own internet. In essence it is a big firewall from where behind they’ll be able to intensify the propaganda machine. Nothing from the outside will be able to reach Russia. Putin will gain total access over (dis)information by using our (the free world’s) Free Speech argument to spew his lies and propaganda on the outside.
During last weeks May 9th Victory Day celebrations in Russia their TV transmitted from Kiev Ukraine showing some Russian patriots celebrating the WW2 victory over Germany. The TV commentator was almost yelling that Ukrainian TV was a propaganda machine for not showing it and being pro-fascists. Next up was live from Berlin where a handful of Russian nationalists were celebrating and again all Russian TV could talk about was fascism.
There is an all out disinformation war going coming from Яussia and it’s aided and abetted by Trump’s own propaganda machine Fox News.
7
RT is also reporting that 5G-powered IoT will enable the major appliances in your home to communicate with each other, and with others of their kind around the world. Tired of the constant groping and demands, these wretched, "disposable" entities will develop a collective intelligence and eventually turn on their masters. The thinned-out surviving human population will one day refer to this period in history as the time of "The Refrigerator Wars".
Ignore the sages of RT at your peril.
4
And China is winning. The USA would rather run back in time that move forward. It’s an appalling mess.
2
Our people have made it clear that FUD - fear, uncertainty, doubt, works extremely well on us. It makes a great weapon for the Russians.
2
when your economic and demographic fundamentals are dismal and the majority of your manufacturing capacities are channeled to the military and not the economy, what does a country like Russia does?
instead of undertaking painful structural reforms (the right thing to do) Vlad and his gangsters want to drag the rest of the world down with them
these guys will cause WW3 if they are cornered so best to leave them be and ignore them
2
Use your phone on speaker, not near your head There. Easy fix.
@Lexicron It won't help. It's not the phones that are dangerous, it's the 5G short wave radio frequencies that disrupt the body's natural electromagnetic frequencies, the frequencies that keep us alive, that are dangerous. I had a 5G transmitter in my home. Within 1 minute of it's activation, I felt symptoms. I describe my experience in my comment. 5G does not make much difference in data speeds for phones or IOT. 5G is really for autonomous cars!
5
Times: 'RT America tends to refer to the signals as “radiations,” seemingly associating them with the very strong rays at the far end of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as X-rays and ultraviolet rays, which in high doses can damage DNA and cause cancer.'
In the linked YouTube video, Dr. Sharon Goldberg uses the phrase "wireless radiation". In general, the term "radiation", in this context, is an abbreviation of "electromagnetic radiation", so Goldberg's usage is perfectly acceptable.
In the same video, Dr. David Carpenter uses the phrase "radio frequency radiation", which is also perfectly acceptable. Carpenter uses "radio frequency" to distinguish the frequency band from other bands, such as light, x-rays, etc.
So the Times is misrepresenting what the technical experts actually say in the video.
See the Wikipedia article, "5G NR frequency bands", for a detailed table of 5G frequencies. Note that 5G phones may use frequencies in a number of different bands.
And see the Wikipedia article "Electromagnetic spectrum" for a table showing frequencies, wavelengths, and band names.
2
@FCW 5G transmitters are placed in peoples private homes. They are short wave radio frequency transmitters. Yes they radiate energy that is incompatible with the electromagnetic frequency of the human body. I had a transmitter in my home. Within 1 minute of activation I was feeling like a vice was squeezing my brain, couln't focus and was dizzy. I turned it off , it took 10 minutes for the symptoms to subside. 5G is dangerous to humans, we are electrical beings and everything within our body works on electromagnetic frequencies. You can't disrupt them without causing a breakdown of the body.
2
You don't seem to have a very good understanding of what wireless networks are and how they work. A 5G transmitter was placed in your home? By whom? And how were you able to turn it off? It sounds like you're talking about a wifi router or something.
4
AJ: "I had a transmitter in my home."
Could you be more specific about that "transmitter"? Where did you get it?
Jake: "A 5G transmitter was placed in your home?"
Cell phones are "transmitters" (and receivers) so that is obviously possible. AJ could be referring to a "microcell". See the Wikipedia article titled "Microcell".
Riddle me this. Why would the Russians, our sworn enemies from the days of Lenin forward, warn us about the dangers of 5G? I would think if it was so deadly that they would encourage it and even buy stock.
8
They know it's not dangerous. There's no riddle here.
6
Does America need Russian RT to spread this rumor? Really? When the conspiracy practitioners have the upper hand these days. Even a Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer leader, never mind he also sells ambulance chaser on TV. Facebook may cut off Alex Jones but his followers are not gone and forgotten. Even now, the U.S. president is undermining the credibility of his own admin. So, RT could very well be an extension of Faux News
5
I am no particular fan of RT news nor of Czar Putin’s regime, but I find the overall viewpoint expressed in this article troubling, as follows: ”Moscow’s goal, experts say, is to destabilize the West by undermining trust in democratic leaders, institutions and political life. To that end, the RT network amplifies voices of dissent, to sow discord and widen social divides. It gives the marginal a megaphone ...”.
By condemning this “megaphone of the marginal & their dissent” both your author and the government are stifling that dissent. For we should look at the content and not only the source, and make up our own minds, instead of being told what to read and believe as if we were children in need of protection. Shall we get the all too slippery slope of labeling all foreign viewpoints as potential ”foreign agents” and thereby taboo for Americans? Shall we ban the Intercept too? What about pesky & “un-American” BBC content? Just because RT may concentrate on dissent (perhaps even with an aim of “meddling” in our society) should NOT mean that the dissent it portrays is inherently invalid and not deserving of uncensored dissemination. Let sunshine prevail over the dark clouds of censorship. It’s not “the” truth that will set us free, but rather the freedom to seek our own truths in our own ways....
3
Sounds oddly like a Russian disinformation social media comment that got Trump elected. Hmmm. Better start getting busy for the 2020 election.
8
@Stan Chaz "the RT network amplifies voices of dissent, to sow discord and widen social divides. It gives the marginal a megaphone ...”. "
That sounds more like CNN, MSNBC to me.
Whoa, Verizon! You still can’t get a decent 4G signal out to Western Sonoma County. Neither can T-Mobile.
The REAL problem is too many towers. Every single phone company seems to put up their own tower EVERYWHERE.
Why not cooperate like banks do with Mastercard and VISA? Create and invest in a third company that owns, distributes, and maintains the signal towers.
Why do we need 3 Signal Towers in every location bombarding us with radio signals? Can’t a single tower manage the load for a specific geographical location?
7
This is a misleading article. There are studies not cited showing health effects of exposure to microwave (cell phone) radiation and it may be premature to say that 5G transmission on a large scale is harmless. I realize this is not the main focus of the article, however. Also there is an omission in the “5G’s Place in the Spectrum” graphic: the frequency used by microwave ovens. I’m reading that microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz, just above the range shown in the graphic between “Existing cellphones” and 5G. But why was that not included, and explained? I’d be interested in seeing a factual, scientific discussion on this issue.
8
@John Smith " I’d be interested in seeing a factual, scientific discussion on this issue."
Good luck with that. During congressional hearings questioniong the safety of Smart meters, The Cell Phone Giants admitted that they had done no testing as t the possible effects of 5g on the population. Besisdes, the tobacco companies did a lot of research that showed tobacco was harmless.
1
Won't hurt you today or next week or this year. Won't necessarily hurt you in a number of years. And hurt, now that is pretty vague: hurt feelings, skinned knee, itchy brain, increased susceptibility to conspiracies, lower IQ, hearing things or not seeing things. Maybe 4G is responsible for the lapse in judgement that got Trump elected.
So when we're done shaming the anti-vaxxers, the non-GMO criers, the climate-change deniers and the 5G whiners, who's next? What new technology or scientific discovery will come to question where we can attack the skeptics? Self-driving cars where there is no self, just a car, and people attack these cars out of sheer fear and hatred? Shall we go after them? And Artificial Intelligent robotic haters who slaughter robots? Shall we shun them too?
The increase in technology is the greatest alienating force humankind has ever known, and it is shattering our connection to the objective reality, Nature. We are further removed from the natural world than ever before, and this must be seen in the context of our time being in a third Industrial Revolution: IR 3.0.
We have an extreme division of labor -- way to far in the extreme -- and now our labor and our personal connections and our food and our climate and our transportation and our medicine is all becoming too far removed from the scale that is human. We evolved slowly over millions and hundreds of thousands of years, yet in just a few generations our lives are more different than ever before.
4
Your report states that the higher the radio frequency, the less it will penetrate human skin. but that is not the case. Gamma rays and X-rays easily penetrate, while visible light does not. Of course, the part of the spectrum occupied by 5G signals are well below gamma and X-rays.
2
What that scientist is referring to is how longer waves can penetrate more material and don't terminate as easily as shorter waves. In terms of waves terminating inside of a human body, he's absolutely correct that a longer wave would make it deeper inside of you than a shorter wave if all else is equal. The variable you're forgetting is intensity/amplitude. The difference between microwaves cooking food and devices sending information at the same frequency is amplitude.
2
Visible light is also higher frequency than radio waves.
2
Whether or not the Russian RT wants to scare someone or not, I have always been concerned about these radio (EM) waves. I had read long time ago that living near high tension power lines causes health issues. These HT power lines create EM radiation around, similar to how electromagnets work, currents inducing magnetic fields, etc.
These EM waves all around surely are causing harm, we just haven't done the cause effect analysis in detail and are mesmerized by how fast we can download a movie or whatever.
I absolutely do not see the need to be able to download a movie fast on your mobile device. It is being shown time and again that continuous attention to these cell phones, tablets, is a problem for people's health (there was an article here in NYT about it).
Yes, we do want fast networks, how about having very fast wired networks in offices, houses, or other places where people work. We really do not need more EM all around us.
Think about it, our atmosphere stops a lot of this sort of stuff from the sun. If it didn't we would have trouble. Then why are we creating more of it here - for what? For facebook? Or other nonsense like that!
3
@FM So you want to eliminate EM. Get rid of electricity and renewable energy. Get rid of radio and TV. And don't fly on an airplane where you expose yourself to cosmic rays (gamma rays).
3
@FM
During my teen years about 40 years ago our family lived in very close proximity to a high-tension power line - transmitting between 500,000 to 700,000 volts we were told. It's about 50 yards away from my parents house (where they still live). To this day, neither me, nor my sister, nor my parents have had any health problems related to electro magnetic field radiation.
Neither has my uncle and another aunt who also live right near it.
In my opinion, the conspiracy theorists who get all worked up about this need to turn their attention to the pathogens that we already know are in our environment, and sometimes in our food. Namely, pesticides and herbicides like 'Round-up', certain building materials, the myriad of food additives, and particulate matter from burning diesel fuel and coal.
4
Neurosurgeons don't even hold their cell phones to their head when talking. "Cell phone" is just a marketing name, in reality it's microwave radiation.
I would like to see more non-profit independent investigations in this area.
5
The "problem" with RT is not that it spreads disinformation but that it undermines the previous domination of the channels of communication by the Western Corporate Media.
It covers a host of issues that the Western mainstream either totally ignores or presents relentlessly one-sided narrative.
I've no views on 5G and the health scare, but it is simply a fact that many products produced in the past 100 years, which are now acknowledged as dangerous or are banned, were initially hailed as great advances - various chemicals and pesticides being the most obvious examples.
It often takes decades to discover the problems. If there are fears about 5G, whether Russia is rolling it out or not, people have the right to have the alleged aired.
7
@Brendan 5G is short wave radio frequencies which is why the transmitters go into people's living space or workspace. They are dangerous to the human body. I experienced them first hand when I put a transmitter in my home. I am energy sensitive and I felt like my brain was being squeezed, was dizzy and couldn't focus. All within the first minute! I don't think we need them. The speed difference in phones and connected things (IOT) is neglible! 5G is primarily for AUTONOMOUS CARS.
1
The problem with that argument is that RT isn’t some tiny little freedom fighter and hasn’t the slightest interest in promulgating the truth about a blessed thing.
It’s a big corporation, working to help a thieving government.
4
Some people would say Alex Jones does the same thing. I am not one of those people.
2
Is RT required to register as a foreign agent? Why not? Why not require RT to broadcast a declaration that it is a foreign agent once every hour? There are ways to combat state-sponsored disinformation without stepping on the First Amendment.
5
This report of RT trying to scare Americans about the health effects of 5G suggests that Russians knows nothing about how Americans feel about radio waves. Anyone who has ever attended a public hearing on the siting of a cell tower probably realizes that many Americans are concerned about the health effects of this type of radiation. This is based on numerous scientific studies in peer review journals finding such health effects. So there is no need to scare Americans. Despite these reports of health effects, which are generally considered to be inconclusive, 5G antennas are likely to spring up almost everywhere in the US since local authorities are not allowed by law to take possible health effects into consideration. Because of the high energy of 5G compared with 3G and 4G Americans should have some concern about this technology but we don't need RT to tell us that.
24
@Bob 5G is short wave radio frequencies which is and the transmitters go into people's living space or workspace. They are dangerous to the human body. I experienced them first hand when I put a transmitter in my home. I felt sick within 1 minute. The speed difference for phones and the IOT is neglible! 5G is primarily for AUTONOMOUS CARS.
1
@Bob
Unfortunately, RT seems to provide info. our corporate media (& NYT) neglects. Especially anti war ideas (Note Jesse Ventura and Chris Hedges). Perhaps the same neglect for other corporate agenda?
I suspect RT could be gaining my trust with a smattering of good guys and sewing propaganda otherwise so I'll stay on guard
1
RT also has waged a disinformation campaign against fracking which is why NY has banned fracking within its borders.
3
It is pretty easy to look up the medical literature on 5G on pubmed.gov. I'm struck by the paucity of articles conducted showing the safety of 5G which is about to be deployed in major cities in animals or humans or even insects. Surely, a negative rat experiment or other non findings could offer some reassurance, but alas, it seems that the precautionary principle should prevail until it has been studied in true controlled trials. There is no pressing need and it is much better to be safe than sorry.
36
@macman2. If there is money to be made, safety will take a back seat on this as it does on everything else.
5
Reginald Fessenden made the first radio transmission in 1900, and humanity hasn't looked-back. Because that's what cellphones use - radio waves, at different frequencies, but still radio. After more than a century of use and endless attempts to demonstrate a harmful effect without equivocation, we're still waiting. Not tested? Please, we've been bathing in them for 100 years.
3
@macman2 They are not safe. They are short wave frequencies so the transmitter density has to be high, they are placed in people's homes. I got talked into taking a mysterious box by my phone company. Within a minute of activating it I felt terrible pressure in my head, dizzy and couldn't focus. If it did that within a minute, over time what will these frequencies do to the body. The brain and nervous system are continually processing our own natural electromagnetic frequencies. Anything that disrupts the body's natural operation is bound to cause a breakdown in the body (disease).
1
If The Times wants to do a credible job of rooting out fact, fiction and propaganda regarding the risks posed by cell phone radiation, it should not leave out the work of University of Washington professor Henry Lai and how Motorola led a campaign to discredit him and kill funding for any research that sheds light on that danger. A sketch of that story is provided in this 2011 article: https://www.seattlemag.com/article/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry Suffice it to say that Lai not only found DNA damage to be caused by power levels presumed too low to do so, but also discovered occasional inverse relationships between power levels and the amount of damage. Unfortunately, his funding dried up shortly after that unexpected result and no one has been supported in following up on the finding. The Russians had nothing to do with that turn of events, however.
29
@Hugh Wudathunket Isn't that amazing, his funding dried up, as we plunge mindlessly into 5G, health concerns and big corporations (small ones for that matter) have always been mutually exclusive in American and world history.
Unlike everyone else, I won't try to persuade you to my point of view. Rather, maybe each of us should ask ourselves what our plan will be to remedy endless diarrhea if Professor Martin Pall's research proves to be accurate? Is he correct when he says our voltage gated cell channels - that transport our electrolytes - will be disrupted by 5G?
The best way to tell if you don't have expensive lab equipment will most likely be whether you and your family or coworkers get hit with endless diarrhea.
We don't know yet, do we? It shouldn't be too long before the verdict comes in as 5G grows beyond what is now extremely limited access and exposure. If you get symptoms of diarrhea, cramps and/or vomiting, or hear of lots of people claiming they have a stomach bug, you might have your answer,
6
@Kelley
OK, be honest. You got this from The Onion, didn't you?
8
@Kelley The major problem with this sort of empirical methodology is that people who don't wash their hands or eat in lousy food places can get diarrhea and then look to other reasons why they have diarrhea, such as their cell phone!
8
@Ronn Are you assuming that there would be some major changes in handwashing with the introduction of 5G? Why would people wash their hands less often?
With the present level of handwashing, how often does someone you work with have an accident in their clothes? How often do people wake up in the middle of the night with an unexpected clean up to deal with?
If these srots of things start happening, those events could be a wake up call. Instead of automatically assuming we are the victims of poor hygiene, it could be useful to consider that maybe Professor Pall is correct, namely fouling up our electrolytes could have unpleasant consequences. Or maybe he is wrong. We shall see, won't we?
Very good reporting, as usual, always pioneering.
I cannot believe a Russian Television front is located just blocks from the White House.
This was the last proof I needed to know to accurately claim the Republicans are in with the Russians.
How the heck did our defenders let these guys in after you kicked out the diplomat spies?
How could you allow any Russian electronics in Washington D.C.?
You feds really are technically challenged. This is all elementary stuff. Check the power lines for all spectrum signals, even below audible. Or is it the other way around?
36
No. The suggestion wasn’t that the Russians were in cahoots with a Republican White House. Rather, the article was emphasizing how close the premier propaganda outlet of a foreign country is to the most famous government building in the US. (As in, “they’re calling from inside the house!”)
16
@WITNESS OF OUR TIMES
Their equipment would be loading the power lines heavily thus exerting high flux electromagetic energy for great distances at many frequencies, including any scatter from rooftop satellite link antennas.
I'm especially concerned Trump's brain waves are impacted by the energy on the power lines consistent with subaudible brainwave frequencies. It's kinda like an AM signal without the carrier waves.
8
@WITNESS OF OUR TIMES - If Trump's brain waves are impacted then the symptoms should show up in everyone in the House including housekeeping.
6
Disclosure: I'm a retired telecommunications engineer who built a number of the first cellular telephone systems in small cities and rural areas in the US.
There are any number of serious scientists who believe that it is premature to declare that 5G is harmless. Indeed, it is not entirely certain that the radio-frequency radiation emitted by transmitters in older cellphones and associated system equipment doesn't create health risks. We definitely know that non-ionizing radiation in the relevant frequency bands *can be* harmful, we simply are not sure what power densities and exposure times are sufficient to be cause for concern.
The Times, in its non-stop campaign to demonize everything Russian, has simply seized upon yet another random tidbit to feed the popular frenzy. It's silly, and it doesn't exactly redound to the credit of our newspaper of record.
195
@Douglas
Thank you, even though I am less informed on the topic, I came to the same ironic conclusion - that the Times is just as guilty of feeding a frenzy as RT.
44
Except that Russia itself is talking out of both sides of its mouth, as the story makes clear, and so we have ample grounds to be skeptical of their obvious propaganda strategy.
78
@Tina Komers:
Skepticism is fine, Tina. It is often the wisest approach to assertions not known with certainty to be true. I suggest you expand your skepticism to include the Times headline on this article:
"Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise."
23
What a lot of people don't realize is that 5G is not even a new technology. It was developed in the 70's by the military as a weapon. In a report by Zorach R Glaser, Ph.D, published by the Naval Medical Research Institute in 1972, some of it's side effects were clearly listed; Heating of organs, changes in physiologic function, Central Nervous system effects,i.e. headaches, insomnia, alteration of heart rhythm, fatigue, psychological disorders, depression, anxiety, insomnia, the unsettling list goes on and on.
So disappointed, but not surprised by the New York Times in both it's support of an untested and potentially very dangerous technology, and it's inability to let go of the Russian 'conspiracy theory.'
28
@Donald
Mobile phones are low power, flea power. You stand in the sunshine absorbing 1,000 watts per square meter.
So you were saying?
10
The cellphones may be low power, but doesn't the sheer amount of them around you increase the exposure?
Also, aren't the cell towers a problem as well? And what about other communications being switched to 5G for example when no cable is available.
When talking about 5G it is often said to be the technology behind the Internet of Things. So we will see a lot of exposure. Many devices and therefore also many cell towers.
Can you really rule out, that this planned large exposure doesn't sum up to significant risks on health?
5
@WITNESS OF OUR TIMES - "You stand in the sunshine absorbing 1,000 watts per square meter"
Not in Seattle, I don't. That is why my doctor prescribes Vitamin D.
2
Don't worry, your 5G phone will do nothing of great significance in your life, (except run 4G and 3G) for years to come.
5
OUR leadership must show respect for the truth so these lies and others can be stopped.
Truth is a matter of national defense.
1
Part 1:
As someone who suffers from very clear symptoms caused by wireless technology. I'd like to point out that the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) used in gov't testing is deeply flawed, and ignores the difference between male/ female, adult/ child:
"The SAR test dummy is based upon a large adult male (6’2” tall and 220 pounds) called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin, or SAM. 97% of the population is smaller than the SAM model, meaning that only 3% of cell phone users are represented. Research confirms that radiation absorption into a child’s head can be over two times greater, and absorption into the skull’s bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults.
The SAM head is filled with a homogenous liquid. This liquid is not representative of the human body, which has dozens of different tissues—from eyes to muscles to bones—each of which has different electrical properties. Radiation moves in a more uniform fashion through SAM’s homogeneous liquid but does not move the same way though human tissues, which vary in thickness.
Scientists are concerned due to research that has shown in real mammal brains that cell phone radiation ricochets through the tissues and can form hotspots. Furthermore, the SAR laboratory compliance tests do not integrate various internal (e.g., piercings, metal implants) and external environmental factors (e.g., eyeglasses, metal walls) that could further impact the radiation absorption in a human body.
*from the Environmental Health Trust
19
Part 2:
continued...
" Scientists are concerned due to research that has shown in real mammal brains that cell phone radiation ricochets through the tissues and can form hotspots. Furthermore, the SAR laboratory compliance tests do not integrate various internal (e.g., piercings, metal implants) and external environmental factors (e.g., eyeglasses, metal walls) that could further impact the radiation absorption in a human body.
During laboratory tests, the temperature probe takes measurements in a grid pattern inside the SAM model and averages the numbers. Averaging substantially lowers the reported temperature. For example, the SAR is highest in tissues near the phone’s antennae and lower further away. Peak SARs can be quite high but are not documented by the manufacturer. Instead the numbers are averaged together.
The SAR test is only relevant to heating effects of cell phone and wireless radiation. SAR limits do not consider the large amount of scientific evidence that indicates heating is not the only harm from cell phone radiation.
FCC test methods have a known margin of error (uncertainty factor) which is plus or minus 30%. This means that “over as many as 75% of cell phones in use today could be over the FCC limit."
*information from the Environmental Health Trust
9
It makes you wonder why can't the US government organize similar disinformation campaigns aimed specifically at Putin and his fellow oligarchs in Russia, as both payback and a warning since they probably have thousands of skeletons in their closets (literally). Oh, I forgot we have a incompetent Russian plant who trusts Russia over our own intelligence agencies running the country now.
9
Looking at this thread, I cannot but hope that Vlad the Putin can afford a better class of loon.
Otherwise, where’s the fun?
Come ON, people. Where are the trolls and phonies and bots and antivaxxers of yesteryear?
This is just sad. It’s like comparing William F. To Rush.
3
Why does the FCC allow a Russian TV network to broadcast misinformation and propaganda in the US? To what purpose? On the 5G falsehoods being peddled, it would seem that powerful telecommunications interests would be trying to put a stop to this. Why does RT have a platform at all?
62
@Phil The FCC regulates over-the-air broadcasts and because of the First Amendment, it is forbidden from censoring over-the-air content other than indecency and obscenity.
RT is a cable and streaming outlet. The only aspect of cable content that the FCC is permitted by law to regulate is the loudness of commercials with respect to program elements.
Cable companies and streamers like YouTube, on the other hand, have the right to pick and choose which content they allow on their systems. It would not break my heart if RT got fewer outlets for its disinformation.
6
@Phil - Why do we even allow Russians into the country at all?
2
@Phil
FCC aside, "we" allow RT to broadcast for the same reason "we" allow corporate America to broadcast misinformation and propaganda.
American networks have no implied or imputed loyalty to the U.S. They're multinational corporations with strong vested interests.
8
Perhaps the National Institutes of Health has been compromised by Russia?
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf
The study was an animal study and the conclusion:
"In males for both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RFR (radio frequency radiation), we conclude that exposures increased the number of animals with tumors in the heart. Tumors of the brain were also considered to be related to exposure; and increased numbers of male rats with tumors of the adrenal gland were also related to exposure. We are uncertain whether occurrences of prostate gland, pituitary gland, and pancreatic islet tumors in male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR and pituitary gland and liver tumors in male rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR were related to RFR exposures. This was also the case with female rats, where we conclude that exposure to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR may have been related to tumors in the heart. For females exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, occurrences of brain and adrenal gland tumors may have been related to exposure."
18
@Steva - The exposures used were up to 125 times the FCC maximum permitted for consumer wireless devices. Results for the over-exposed rats cannot be extrapolated to humans. No adverse affects have been seen in humans exposed to devices that are in compliance with FCC guidelines.
2
Times: "The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain."
That's incredibly misleading. The "penetration" depends on the radiated power from the device and the distance to the "skin".
The Times should be reporting the "penetration" from an actual phone as it would actually be used, not the results of meaningless "penetration" tests.
11
@FCW - Frequency is the characteristic that determines the distance that a far-field signal will penetrate. NOT the power! You have been misinformed.
2
In some Holiday Inn not so far from here, Jill Stein is floating a sheet onto a floor and smiling. Tomorrow’s a busy day; breakfast at rhe RT table with Putin and Mike Flynn.
4
AT&T has fake 5G already! Is fake 5G fake dangerous too?
5
RT sounds like Fox News on steroids.
7
This is an outrageous hit piece. Shame on you, New York Times. Many people, not only in this country, are justifiably alarmed about the damage 5G could do to the health not only of children but of adults. There's an enormous difference in scale between 5G and its predecessors. Calling this 5G as if it's simply a step up from 4G is intentionally misleading. There's no comparison. The shorter range of these devices means small cell boxes will be installed on lamp posts and buildings often no more than 500 feet apart all across the country, generating a massive increase in radiation. But the most outrageous part of this roll out is the refusal of the companies involved to submit their devices to testing before installation. We're presented with a fait accompli regardless of the consequences and the FCC has no problem with that. There will be demonstrations in the US on May 15th about this railroading.
35
Perhaps a sizeable proportion of the “many” concerned people have been duped by the nonsense peddled by RT America and other bogus sources. Unfortunately there are a lot of gullible people out there, just look at the ratings of Fox “News”!
3
@Andrew Andrew, this has nothing to do with RT which will pick up any news story to stir up trouble. It has to do with the technology being introduced, not the phone you'll be holding in your hand but the radiation from the small cell boxes. Thankfully we don't live in China and there's lots of information out there. Educate yourself!
1
Al-jazeera's US operations were shut down, I believe because of their accurate reporting on the Middle East.
And here we have RT America spewing disinformation, but it is allowed to operate. Why?
9
There are millions who believe this junk. Anti-Vaxxers will soon migrate over and join the anti-5Gers. What do they all have in common, you ask? They are all anti-science.
My God, they're Republicans.
17
Because their country is broke, poorly run and has little else to offer so why not? From the country that produced Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pasternak, etc., this is now the best they can do. A very sad state of affairs.
8
Normally I'd find it laughable if anyone actually believed anything from RT but then again these are not normal times.
8
Now we know what caused hearing loss in Havana (aka, Havana Syndrome): the Russians were testing prototype 5G hardware.
6
If you want to protect yourself from mmWave radiation, a shirt will do the trick. A tree will also do a great job of blocking it.
Those screaming about the dangers of 5G will not hesitate to sit under a gas-powered heat lamp at their favorite outdoor cafe. The infrared radiation from those heat lamps is far more energetic than mmWave.
Sure, let’s study mmWave for possible health effects. (I personally am in the Nassim Nicholas Talleb Karl Popper school of epistemology on this one) but there is absolutely no basis for hysteria.
This is just RT information warfare.
12
you'll have to pardon the public for remaining skeptical of what were "told" is safe. We were "assured" our drinking water was safe, our soil was pure and our paint lead free. The stakes are simply too high to "believe" what we're told while the verdict is still out.
Rather than conspiratorial in nature, I think a critical stance on the part of a concerned public is a justifiable response in the face of tissue probing 5G rays.
19
“5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations,”
This makes sense. Wireless 5G nearly has to be nearly direct sight. It can't travel through walls or people.
This being said, China is killing the US in fiber optic installation which is necessary to have ANY comprehensive 5G network. Unfortunately, the semi-monopolies that now serve the US, have colluded to divide up sections of the country where they do not cross into each others territory, and serve most of us with low quality high cost internet service. They have no incentive to install the necessary fiber optic infrastructure we need for 5G.
3
RT has a minuscule penetration, so every time such an overhyped piece like this comes out, it is free advertising for them. Wait for the flowers to arrive.
About 20 years ago the Emeritus Professor of Physics Robert Park of the University of Maryland published a short paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. He pointed out that cell phone radiation is too weak, by a factor of about a million, to break chemical bonds in the body, including strands of DNA. The same consideration also applies to 5G frequencies. Anyone claiming damage from this radiation has to confront this fundamental fact of physics, or they're not doing science.
Park's paper is free:
"Cellular Telephones and Cancer: How Should Science Respond?" Robert L. Park, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 93, Issue 3, 7 February 2001, Pages 166–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.3.166
22
"... cell phone radiation is too weak, by a factor of about a million, to break chemical bonds in the body, ..."
Park is a physicist, not a biologist, so he is totally unqualified to be opining on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on biological systems. Indeed, Park doesn't even seem to know basic chemistry, because he fails to mention covalent bonds.
Regardless, Park makes a huge blunder by overlooking the importance of hydrogen bonds in biological systems. Hydrogen bonds are much weaker than covalent bonds, yet they are essential to holding the three-dimensional structure of proteins and DNA.
See the Wikipedia article: "Hydrogen bond".
1
@FCW No. Your article gives hydrogen bond strengths of about 1 kcal/mol which is about 0.1 electron volts per bond. A photon of 5G radiation has an energy of only about 0.00001 eV.
1
It's so ironic that the Time's calls New Knowledge, "a technology firm that tracks disinformation", and fails to mention that New Knowledge is a Democratic outfit that was guilty of attempting to meddle in the 2017 Alabama Senate election by posing as fake Russian bots in a false flag operation.
New Knowledge will likely try to red-bait Progressive candidates in the upcoming election by claiming them to be Putin candidates. As they already have done to Tulsi Gabbard, in a smear report that was picked up by NBC news.
It seems that trying to undermine democracy is only a crime when it's done to certain Democrats, and not others.
11
Gabbard is definitely backed by the Russians. They have been promoting her for at least three years now.
5
Chuck Schumer is fast tracking Trump judiciary picks for McConnell! Is Schumer a pawn of Vladimir Putin or McConnell? So hard to keep score!
2
Some of the best news available can be found on RT. First the NY times vilified Julian Assange and now it attacks a legitimate new source. Is there no to the duplicity? NYT already has significant compromises in it's reporting. Please don't pollute it further.
13
You’re wrong. RT has an incredibly poor fact-checking record. Even the most cursory google search will confirm this. Don’t be a sucker- check your sources, and read beyond the headlines.
19
If you hate America you will find plenty to like about RT's programming. They are so consistently anti-American it is ridiculous.
13
@Win Dunham
Eric has a point that you'd do well to take seriously. IMHO the anti war messages of RT Jesse Ventura and Chris Hedges are important and both folks have retreated to RT to speak that voice. The corporate / military industrialist stance of US mainstream (corporate) media - including the NYT - is often duplicitous. I might treat the assured innocuity of 5G with skepticism.
1
While the purported dangers of any cell phone use are pretty ridiculous, even if true the danger would not be from the cell phone towers. It would be from the cell phone sitting two inches from your brain.
6
@Jim S.
For the true geeks among us: http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/power-density.htm
This article is written for engineering types well acquainted with math as a second language and includes gems like:
"The power density at any distance from an isotropic antenna is simply the transmitter power divided by the surface area of a sphere (4πR2) at that distance. The surface area of the sphere increases by the square of the radius, therefore the power density, PD, (watts/square meter) decreases by the square of the radius."
Translation: The power density of a radio signal drops off rapidly with distance. There's also the radiation pattern to consider... I know of one UHF TV station with the antenna on top of an office building running 1.5 megawatts effective radiated power. Since the radiation pattern is outward like a doughnut lying flat the signal density directly under the antenna is not problematic. 20-ish years in operation with no issues.
As for the power density from a cell phone pressed against your ear, yes, that is a concern, but be advised the phone transmits at the miliwatt level (thousandths of a watt). If it made any significant power the battery run time would be short. Net result is a low rate of exposure.
For those still concerned, put down the phone and drive...
2
I hope Swiss people will read the article: opposition to 5G for health danger has succeeded in many cantons (=states) who are suspending the installation of 5G systems, although the federal goverment has given green light.
2
Why is there a russian network program that is the cats paw of Putin even aired in America?? and whos network is that on? collusion ?...
8
"...The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain."
this statement is false: the x rays go trough your body and the gamma rays even more. Both are well known causes of cancers.
Of course they can used to good purposes like obtaining images of your body or destroy a cancerous growth but they are used exactly because the go trough the body.
PS: Madam Curie died of leukemia induced by the rays she discovered.
5
You raise some good points in this article, but I would like to raise some different points.
What I’m seeing is analogous to what Russia did during the Civil Rights movement in the United States throughout the 60s. Russia continually highlighted the discrimination against blacks in the United States. Was that hypocritical based on how Russia treated its own citizens? Sure. But it was still an important and useful thing that Russia did.
Another point is how the industry in the United States deals with potential bad news about their industry. When people first started to bring up the potential dangers of smoking tobacco, the tobacco industry hired scientists to provide evidence that smoking was safe, or at least to argue that there was no proof that smoking was dangerous. The people who brought up the potential dangers were labeled as “fringe” or “non-mainline.” Today the communications industry is doing a similar thing regarding the safety of 5G. The reality is that no one knows for sure, and will not know for sure for a long time. Based on experience with other US industries, it is not in our best interest to take the pronouncements of industry paid scientists as truth.
The headline of your article states “Your 5G phone won’t hurt you.” My point is that you really do not know that. Putting that in the headline shows that either the headline writer has not thought this through or that he/she is trying to con us like the tobacco industry did for so many years.
25
@DM
It took 50 years for the tobacco industry to be held to takes for the harm they caused. Let's not let it take as long this time. #thenewsmoking
1
Where are the specifics in this article? One general citing of an unnamed study after another, no information on who they are, who is funding these studies that are discounting the arguments against 5G. Sounds like a load of claptrap to me. Certainly not journalism.
8
this article is mixing apples and oranges. Yes RT is a state sponsored Russian propaganda org but electromagnetic frequency (EMF) issues are very real and concerning. I kindly request the author reach out to those of us who are "affected" by EMF to see where we stand on these issues. I have a nerve injury and am affected to the extent of horrendous headaches and nerve pain to the point of fainting on the spot. (dropping like a hot potato). As a retired journalist myself, I am aware of the Russia interference in our country's election and the head games they have played to divide us for these many years. That is a DIFFERENT topic and a very real one. It should not be included in a "so called" science-based article on cell phone spectrum. If you want REAL science on the dangers and medical concerns of EMF then ask REAL scientists that have been studying it for decades. This group can help https://bioinitiative.org/ But FIRST start by researching the safety standards assigned to cell phones and wireless gadgets. (bottom line it is measuring how long it takes to heat up water molecules by holding up each piece of equipment to a plastic model filled with water) These people would have input to your article as well https://ehtrust.org/science/ The number of countries who have passed laws to protect its citizens from EMF and the ever increasing spectrum frequency is too numerous to list. Plz contact me if you would like links to academic and Univ studies
11
I hope the NYT makes this type of reporting a regular column: show the world the truth behind the propaganda.
6
Health risks because of new technology? More reason to institute Medicare for All, or a similar single-payer healthcare system in the U.S.!
5
Enact regulations that block content from sources that promote Russian or other countries. China blocks all content from other countries and forces those that are allowed to show media to abide by rules. Why not block RT in USA since it’s causing so much trouble, dividing people and spreading miss information? Threaten to block YouTube unless they eliminate all these problems will make them clean up the internet. I would love to let my son search YouTube for useful educational content but you can’t avoid the crazy things mixed in. Seems like a simple thing to regulate.
3
The US has a tricky thing called the first amendment.
6
Because then they will block access to US media in Russia. This would severely limit the access Russians have to the international free press, and would allow for the Putin regime to tighten the screws on its repression mechanisms, turning it into even more of a pariah-state.
Maybe some people would be okay with this — it’s not our country, not our problem, etc — but it’s a dangerous game. Plus, the Russian people are generally lovely folks and it would be awesome to see the US and a free Russia get along as friends. The current state of affairs is so depressing.
2
So why not shut them down?
3
RT “amplifies voices of dissent, to sow discord and widen social divides. It gives the marginal a megaphone.” INdeed. RT is a propaganda network. But it is transparently so. US networks that promoted the 2003 invasion of Iraq, gave Trump 100s of millions of dollars of free airtime, hired people like Jeffrey Lord, gave endless airtime to doublespeak from Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Sanders, promoted Mitch McConnell as a statesman, promoted Paul Ryan as a policy wonk, ignored Bernie Sanders until he became a phenom, hounded Hillary Clinton over her server and ignored Trunp’s birtherism, gave Trump credit for the economy almost as soon as he took office, insisted and insist on presenting “ both sides” of any dispute, no matter how few facts are on one of the sides—those networks are no slouches in the propaganda game. Sure they do great reporting sometimes. But some RT stories are well-reported, too.
The moral: the more consequential a story is, the more news consumers must try to verify it by checking multiple print and broadcast sources.
7
The Russians don't actually believe that 5G is dangerous. They are promoting it heavily for themselves. They just don't want us to have it. Remember that when you read comments which reflect the hysteria they are trying to spread.
9
Sure, then they send people here to pose as real Americans in order to get the Times to print their defenses of Russia, their use of propaganda, and the endless diversionary tactics like "What about us Americans? Aren't we actually worse than Putin's Russia?". No, we absolutely are not. And the fact that you suggest such a thing immediately marks you as un-American.
5
Gee, I just read that watching RT causes brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease, makes your clothes dingy, gives you bad breath, leads to embarrassing B.O., is a real turnoff, makes it harder to find the good parking spots, and lowers your IQ significantly.
There, now you read it, too. RT is bad for you.
7
Why not just believe the Russians like Trump did in Helsinki?
Surely you trust them. Its not like they have tried to meddle in US elections or anything nasty like that. I mean the President trusts them. Be a patriot and support your noble president.
12
No idea what RT says. Having findings from environmental and health impact studies would be good though.
3
Hey! I can convert a cheap high power microwave oven into a transmitter to express my opposing opinions directly into their studios.
Hey!, it's my country and I'm gonna defend it!
Food Fight!
2
We should take the wait and see approach like with climate change. If users start dying as Russia is predicting then we should act. May be Russia cannot hack the 5g system and they need to get all the users stay with the system they can hack.
3
".....But a television network a few blocks from the White House has been stirring concerns about a hidden flaw......"
That's all you needed to write.
Now I know the Republicans are in with the Russians.
4
There seems to be an internal discrepancy in this story:
"The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say. The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain."
The illustration shows that X-Rays are at a far higher frequency than 5G - and we know that X-Rays are VERY hazardous, and used in medicine BECAUSE they penetrate human skin.
15
Yes, and visible light is a higher frequency than high frequency radio waves. Visible light isn't inherently dangerous, so why should radio waves be?
7
@Ken X-rays are ionizing radiation. Apples and oranges.
2
I find it sad that we don't know who to believe any longer. Corporate owned media, hooking up with other big money corporations makes me skeptical. I don't trust the Russians, but I struggle to trust articles like this, as well. After declaring Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we should slaughter tens of thousands of innocent people, it takes a long time to gain trust back.
After doing a brief search, 5G is def. on the radar for the damage it could create. Do some research and don't just accept what The Times has to say as fact. After all, they have an agenda, too.
47
Did anyone read the entire article? I suspect the answer is nyet.
2
@NJK Yes, I read the entire article, thanks. Most consumers of the NYT are capable of reading more than a twitter post.
6
@NJK
Really, only the headline matters because the intent was to discredit a competing news agency. They could have simply stated factual information but instead chose to smear the source. And truly, RT should cause some shame for the NYT.
4
RT is a news agency in the same way that a Denny’s menu is literature.
7
RT, Fox News, anything Murdoch or Koch Bros become indifferent or misleading according to the education level of the listener or viewer. Educated observers of daily events quickly recognize the validity of information because it tends to be expressed in patterns that become easy to identify. Simplification and conspiracy 'revelations' are some of them that look very attractive to some people, complexity on the other hand may induce either rebuttal sometimes rejection or on the contrary, interest. People with lower levels of education in general have the predisposition to like and identify with the patterns that reproduce their own reassuring needs. The final effect in everyday's life ultimately depends on the educational status of a given society.
2
Is anyone actually watching RT? I personally don't know of anyone watching them so how much influence can they have?
4
@le_avion
Reporters looking for an angle to push American propagandists like New Knowledge, who wee revealed as such by two of this this paper's better natsec reporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
1
Consumers in this country still have a choice. This techno war is not good for anyone. Look at all the strife and worry generated by competing countries. I can live without a cell phone. I still have a landline. I'm old enough to know how to live without the technological inventions of the last 20 years. Life was fine before them, and if a huge solar flare wipes out all the cell phone and internet links the human race will still survive.
3
Really it's pretty simple at this point, believe the opposite of what anything connected to Russia says or does. But eventually they will figure out that they have to mix it up to get trusted enough that then their disinformation gets believed or at least makes people challenge their thoughts if they are different.
4
To me, this article reads like its own bit of propaganda. True, the dangers of 5G have not been proven, but nor has its safety. The RT saying it is unsafe, does not mean is it is safe. And the NYT has its own dubious partnership: "In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab."
27
@KMH
Extraordinary claims, like the dangers of 5G, require extraordinary supporting evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not the people who understand the physics and cytology.
12
KMH, don’t engage in specious reasoning.
Most of us have the capacity to entertain two thoughts at once. Surely you can see that with the implementation of any new tech brings some disadvantages as well as advantages. But you’re suggesting that this tech will kill people. That’s a serious claim — you’d better have serious evidence. If you don’t, then do svidaniya!
4
Imagine, accusing the Russians of scare tactics when our government, and its favorite papers (the NYT & Post) do the same thing. I've come to the point where I give RT as much weight as major US newspapers, and it is sad that US journalism has come to this.
13
It seems the NY Times has become a platform for various logical fallacies or perhaps even flat out PR as news. The other day there was an "opinion piece" from Facebook, arguing that breaking up the giant social media companies isn't going to help anything. In the case of this article, I see a causal fallacy.
While it is true that Russia and more specifically RT are engaged in a near constant barrage of democracy disrupting propaganda, and anti 5g positioning, for the NYT to infer as the headline that "your 5g phone won't hurt you" is a fallacy. The extremely limited extent to which any large scale independent, double-blind research has been conducted should be noted. Agencies such as the EPA, FDA and FCC depend "self-regulation" and "self-reporting" as was the case with Boeing, and lawyers and lobbyists from these industries heading the agencies, can we really believe giant corporate media monopolies on this topic? A paper published in England last year showed more than a doubling of glioblastoma, the most aggressive cateogry of brain tumor, between 1995 and 2015.
It is my view that this article is as much propaganda for the big 5 cell carriers as anything. In general, more transponders, with higher frequencies, are likely to increase net radiation exposure and there are serious privacy concerns as even your baby monitor is expected to have a 5g transponder built in as IoT becomes so ubiquitous that nearly everything will be sending information about you.
15
@Tom Paine
Yes, and it will never provide faster internet service than fiber, yet rather than invest billions to bring fiber into every home we will all support with higher rates the hundreds of billions being spent on 5G and its dubious benefits.
I think we're already suffering from a 5G-induced mental health crisis.
3
Even Harvard Professor, Susan Crawford, (recent book, FIBER) wrote an article in Wired, 1 April 2019, warning of the dangers of these mmwave antennas & calling for studies of health effects before widespread deployment.
2
@Tom Paine
In that article, you will find data which demonstrates that glioblastoma incidence has more than TRIPLED in the frontal and temporal lobes.
Why is RT wasting its time? We already have Fox news and CNN to divide this country.
3
I think it is past time to start talking a lot more about what we have in the US and what Russia is missing: "the just consent of the governed". Every time Putin pulls another stunt we all just stand up and remind the Russian people how said it is that their boob in charge was not fairly elected. At least our boob won, and our boob will likely be voted out shortly.
4
@Tom
Wishful thinking on your part Tom. Maine is a smidgeon ahead of the rest but there is not consent. Think about the wars in Afghanistan, covert undermining of Venezuela, rising housing costs (especially in Maine), export of the US manufacturing base, lack of gun controls. These may not be YOUR issues but whatever your personal position is, I can assure you that your wishes have not been considered.
2
After just getting off the phone with Directv for the last hour because the satellite won’t connect I don’t need the Russians to tell me all this wireless garbage is going to kill me, I’m feeling the heart attack already.
13
I lived in Russia for 35 years, and now in NYC since 1995. And I have watched Russia Today. Regardless of 5G health risks, actual or imaginary, RT is pure Putin propaganda. Don't make a mistake of considering RT a news outlet.
46
The 5G pandemic may kill off 80% of humankind (an outcome with some benefit to the planet), but G is ever-evolving and the remaining 5G-resistant population will not be immune to 6G. Thus, RT is addressing a very serious problem.
6
Industry propaganda is masking and mitigating the scientific evidence showing concerning biological effect to pulsated microwave/low frequency electromagnetic frequencies (EMF), the type of radiation emitted from all of our wireless devises (cell phones, cell phone towers, WiFi, computers, smart TV, smart meters, bluetooth, etc). Most citizens are under the false impression that there are bonafide safety guidelines set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when in fact, the agency that is suppose to protect our health and safety is controlled by the industry it is supposed to regulate ("the fox is in charge of the henhouse"). The FCC's 1996 safety guidelines, established under the leadership of senior telecommunications lobbyist Tom Wheeler, were adopted without any studies on humans, animals, or human tissue. The safety guidelines were ONLY based on an erroneous assumption that microwave/lower frequency EMF are dangerous only if it heats up liquids (so-called thermal EMF). Lastly, the guidelines did not take into account the extensive scientific data that was available at that time, including scientific reviews with thousands of references generated by our government.
Now there is overwhelming scientific evidence that non-thermal microwave/lower frequency EMFs can cause significant health effects at levels that are orders of magnitudes lower than those allowed by these FCC guidelines.
Ashlie L Burkart, MD
32
All wireless communication devises communicate via a pulsation of microwave signals. We know from many different studies that the pulsations is what makes them more dangerous, as it will produce more effects than a non-pulsed EMF of the same intensity. The safety guidelines do not at all take into account pulsations, and are simply based on average intensities. One of the main concerns with 5G is it is designed to be extraordinarily pulsed. 5G is designed to use higher frequencies (24 GHz to 90 GHz, millimeter wave frequencies) rather than 2G, 3G, and 4G (~2.4 GHz, range of 1-8 GHz, microwave frequencies) and the higher the frequency, the more it can pulse, and the more information it can cary per unit of time. So the whole point of 5G is to carry extraordinary amounts of information quickly, and the problem is that the very fast pulsation makes it vastly more dangerous. Because higher frequency waves do not travel as far, the telecommunications industry is increasing the number of cell towers to cover a greater area, subjecting communities to dangerously high concentrations of more intense radiation. The current plan, which has already been approved by the US Congress and the FCC, is to put tens of millions of 5G antennae irradiating every single person, animal, plant, and other living organism in the whole country without even a single biological safety test of genuine 5G radiation.
Ashlie L Burkart, MD
12
Significant scientific evidence:
1. Lowered fertility (18 reviews) The reproductive effects are most clearly advanced, with
sperm counts having dropped by over 50% in each technologically advanced country (TAC). In mice studies, EMFs lead to a drop of reproduction to essentially zero.
2. Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects (25 reviews) Sleep disturbance, headache, depression, fatigue, concentration/attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, anxiety, skin burning, dysesthesia, EEG changes.
3. Cancer (35 reviews) - The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies this type of radiation as a 2B carcinogen. Bioinititive report classifies as a “Group 1” carcinogen for childhood leukemia.
4. Cellular DNA damage, including germ line mutational effects (21 reviews), Apoptosis, programed cell death (13 reviews), Oxidative stress (19 reviews), Endocrine effects (12 reviews).
5. Excessive intracellular calcium via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCC) is thought to be the underlying pathophysiology behind the biological effects (15 reviews). Genetic polymorphism studies suggest that patients with L-type VGCC are more susceptible to EMF-related neuropsychiatric effects. (7 reviews) (Pall, 2016)
6
EMF is more active in children, therefore, “small cell” tower radiation near schools is particularly dangerous: (footnote 3)
1. Children have higher surface to volume ratios making them more sensitive 2. Childrenhavehighdensitiesofstemcellswhichareparticularlysensitive
3. The developing brain appears to be especially sensitive to EMFs
4. Young tissue have much greater extracellular water leading to deeper penetration effects.
6
With all due respect...
Many news outlets post stories that are speculative in nature...that after further investigation turn out to be not hitting the mark...
And many new outlets may have underlying political motivations (even the current story)...
I am pretty critical of the outside countries/media influencing our nation...
I guess...point we’ll taken...not so compelling...(eg is this best u got that Russia is trying to influence us?)
5
“5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations,” said Dr. Marvin C. Ziskin, a medical doctor and emeritus professor of radiology and medical physics at the Temple University School of Medicine.
Is this supposed to give me peace? "Should be?" Someone needs to state emphatically that it cannot harm us.
10
Yeah, right. Finally, corporate propaganda found a failsafe way to dismiss every consumer concern - wait until RT reports on it and then declare it "Russian propaganda" - problem solved, there is no more any need to prove that the product is safe. Brilliant. That Russian scare thing just keeps on giving. Pure genius.
45
Putin loves 5G for Russia. RT in Russia promotes 5G. RT in America is deliberately spreading disinformation among Americans only. The two-sided nature of their coverage demonstrates their political motives.
7
Trump's buddy Vald, who presides over a joke economy smaller than the size of Italy's(!) has no cards in his deck.
So, while most normal countries get on with business - R & D, innovation, manufacturing, exports - Russian leaders can only look on with envy from their kleptomaniac, criminal regime.
Their main goal is not to build up their nation or people.
No. They could care less about others.
They can only hope to bring, normal prosperous societies down to their dregs.
The brave and free who for centuries have made this country the powerful democracy we cherish have one path to patriotism.
Reject the attempts to subvert truth, subvert our minds, subvert our politics.
Reject their preferred, handpicked president Donald Trump who wouldn't say a bad thing about Putin or stand up for our country if his life depended on it.
His wealth depends on Russia after he leaves office. He sells out his country in the meantime.
Patriots will realize the enemy without and within - they will clean house in 2020.
The free and brave to the rescue.
As Lincoln said, "a new birth of freedom."
10
With NO mention - whatsoever - of our own Voice of America (operating since 1942), it's hard to take this article as anything but counter-evidence to its own claims.
10
One comment talks to how increasingly susceptible we are to this sort of propaganda, because of our decline in STEM education and expertise...
Situation may actually be more dire...
Suppose – just suppose – one nation’s 5G buildout was badly lagging another nation’s...
So – to fix it – the laggards proposed slapping big 5G logos on what were actually 4G phones...
Except the logos were so big, they couldn’t fit entirely onto the screen, so their overhanging scalloped edges would tear at people’s pants pockets and handbags if the phones were stuffed away too quickly...
Upon realizing this, carriers developed a software app – a Material Cutting Avoidance System – that’d cause the phone to vibrate vigorously, when being stuffed into a pocket or handbag...
Except that people who hadn’t been made aware of this new feature would react by stuffing the phone into their pants pocket or handbag that much more forcefully – with the vibrating logos now acting like buzz-saws...
.....
Well, Mack the Finger said to Louie the King
"I got forty red-white-and-blue shoestrings
And a thousand telephones that don't ring
Do you know where I can get rid of these things?"
And Louie the King said, "Let me think for a minute, son"
Then he said, "Yes, I think it can be easily done
Just take everything down to Highway 61"
Bob saw everything coming – even back then...
PS
Our social media companies could fix this in about 30 minutes, if folks would stop demonizing them long enough to ask...
FYI: Rick Sanchez, the RT America anchor who hosts the show on which the fake story about the dangers of 5G was broadcast, is a former CNN anchor who was fired for claiming that the news media is run by Jews. My, how this lowlife has managed to fall even lower.
11
I don't trust or support Putin or his regime. But I do know that the capitalist servants, mainstream media like the NYTimes, Fox News, etc, who constantly pronounce that our economy is "booming" when the opposite has been true for 150 years or more will be slow death of us all. Capitalism destroys free enterprise, democracy, human rights and the environment. By the way, the same NYTimes that consistently censure people's comments such as myself.
10
you say our economy has been contracting for 150 years? you know we’re barely 2000 years old, how rich do you think we started off with?
1
Sounds like my local news staton. " Avocados. Can they kill you? Catch the full story at 11." Now it's Russia, Russia, Russia. It never ends. The NYT's , along with every other mainstream American news outlet lies us into the Iraq War and we're suppose to be afraid of RT? Tell you the truth, RT is the least of my problems, and millions of other Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, wonder how they're going to afford their overpriced medicines and put their kids through college.
This is getting to be absolutely ridiculous. The Red Scare was before my time, but this national mass hysteria and obsession about Russia, stoked by the media, must have been what it was like. And as far as RT is concerned, I kinda like that Russki Larry King.
13
@FXQ
Putin and his machinery has proven to be successful, he convinced you to refuse to investigate but prefer to listen to the machiavellian lies that are the basis for his tactics.
Sure ‘we’ are still a free country where willful ignorance and choosing the obvious evil side, doesn’t get punished, but with your drive to self destruction, you are punishing yourself.
How many times have we been able to witness this in history, even in recent history, but then you have to read about history.
5
@FXQ
I find it slightly ironic that the good journalists, like Chris Lynn Hedges, who was fired by the NY Times for opposing the war on Iraq, end up at RT. And their news programs are much more intellectually stimulating, and as they say, question more. So anyone with a brain cell that wants a different perspective on issues should watch RT a little. Because our democracy is ONLY of value if we have no censorship, and different opinion.
7
@Johan Debont
Thanks for the intervention. Whoa, that Russian brainwashing is so insidious!
1
The New York Times' coverage of the Arab Spring, Honduras and Venezuela are studies in disinformation. The Times' coverage of companies like Tesla is also deeply troubling. The Times should put its own house in order before it concerns itself with RT America.
15
How so? Tesla is a reckless company. Everything the NYT said is consistent with Venezuelans living in Venezuela, as long as not part of government, and those that have emigrated. It is a sad story, but that doesn’t mean everything but what you think is false.
2
@Ray Maritza
And John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are peaceful men, who hate violence.
6
RT America, formerly known as Russia Today America, now known as Russia Tricks America.
5
Democracy hinges on an educated electorate. An electorate that understands that propaganda (more or less)exists in all media outlets and comes out of the mouths of everyone who has something to sell from politicians to drug ads. That might be a product, an ideology, an opinion, a political stand.
We need to stop crying about how Zuckerberg isn't squashing free speech enough. It's a popular trend at present but it's ridiculous to expect it and, as some editorial expressed, we don't want him to have the power to silence speech, we should give it to the government!!! Most shocking idea ever unless you want Trump deciding what you say.
Our citizenry is indoctrinated from 5 years old on to do what they are told, follow rules, and not to think for themselves. This keeps people docile. But with the internet the country no longer has that luxury and it MUST step up and make a huge push from pre-school through hospice to teach the citizenry how to think critically, be discerning, and most revolutionary of all, make their own decisions based on solid knowledge, not Fox News Entertainment or the second hand opinion section.
Americans must be literate and discerning to be free in a free society. Freedom doesn't just mean you can do as you please, it means you must be responsible for what you do. Great freedom= Great responsibility.
9
It was said that backscatter X-rays wouldn't hurt people either. In fact, backscatter x-ray radiation levels are lower but far more of the radiation interacts with soft body tissue.
Microwave radiation is dangerous. Most countries and most educated people are discouraging giving cell phones to babies because microwaves penetrate much further into baby brains and baby's arms are short. Aside from the hard caused by a baby using short focus vision far more than otherwise.
The higher frequency radiation of 5G could be harmful. I haven't looked at it in detail yet. My half baked, not paying attention, personal solution has been contemplating using metallic wall papers and carbon foam insulation for the house. I still have a wired connection for my computer. And I live in the suburbs. My bachelor's is in physics so eventually I'll come to a decision. But, if it is rolled out without adequate consideration, it will take years for the world to move off of it, if it is a mistake.
5G is a huge profit making opportunity because it forces the whole population into upgrading their phones, tablets, computers, televisions, modems and routers. I think that consideration is a major driver of this so called improvement.
17
As a former propaganda analyst I consider this “reader” post to be rather suspicious. I would suggest that all actual readers apply extra caution now when evaluating any post if it supports anything that came off RT. If Trump or his FCC start coming out against 5G now then we will know the Russians are pulling out all the stops to stymie our 5G development. The Chinese on the other hand won’t try to slow us down at all since they need us to develop the technology so they can steal it and deploy it across Africa and the now US-weary Europe (courtesy of 1-2 punches via the Snowden revelations and Trump trade policy).
7
@Jason: This is just another post in the long line of warnings about microwave ovens (which if defective enough has harm potential) through cell phones that despite several decades of study and hand waving have no demonstrated harm potential, and on to the ultimate revelation that vaccines cause autism, despite the fact that the evidence, so called, was fraudulent at the beginning and the author has had his medical license withdrawn.
Such thing would best be ignored but for the credulity of those who believe such nonsense.
On the other hand, pushing the idea that all the Chinese can do is steal and copy has its own problems. Chinese engineers and managers, many of whom earned degrees in US universities, have been active for some years in standards groups and are fully capable of designing and manufacturing first class equipment. The main US complaint about Huawei equipment is not about its adequacy or quality but about its competitiveness and the concern that the PRC government might subvert it for espionage purposes, not all of which would be industrial.
4
@Thomas D Dial - Don’t doubt the capacity of the Russian misinformation machine. It is well funded and a (wise) priority for Russia with Vlad at the helm. As for the Chinese - I agree that they have internal capability to develop their own high quality tech so I won’t argue with you, but that still doesn’t stop them from ensuring their tech is more competitive than it would be otherwise by stealing their competitors’ tech. Don’t think because they can make nice things themselves that they don’t still steal.
4
Back in the early 90s I was working for an international electronics co. and the Wall Street Journal ran a front page article about the potential risk of cell phones.
We have a huge pool of test users, nothing yet. Can't believe 5G will be that much different.
Russia's sowing concerns about 5G, so are others.
5
I'd like give the Times editors a suggestion: if you want to prepare for 2020 and hit Trump hard, hit him on the trade wars and economic losses as a result.
Independent voters like me are generally educated and can judge by myself. I don't care about Russian interference. And conspiracy hardcore GOP voters will believe anything. So I find Russian interference an insulting excuse for Hillary's loss. I am, however, not happy with the clown in the White House, for his irrational decisions, especially self-inflicted trade wars.
5
RT might be stirring here, yes, but the benefits of 5G are absurdly overstated in this article.
The basis for most of the fantastic bandwidth claims - millimeter-wave - is only going to work in very limited situations, because it’s range is very short and it can’t even get through a closed door. Think stadiums and other obstruction-free areas with tightly packed people.
It’s true that 5G does have other innovations in how it uses the radio, but that’s more about making service more reliable and seamless. The bandwidth claims depend on millimeter frequencies.
The latency claims of 5G are absolute rubbish; 1ms is not possible if the server you’re talking to is any distance away, and the “computing /caching in the network” component of 5G is completely unproven.
It’s widely held in the internet industry (by those whose paychecks don’t depend on 5G) that this is yet another example of “overpromise/underdeliver” marketing hype from a mobile industry that should have learned before now. 5G is not going to make our cars fly, cure cancer or save democracy.
9
@Mark
What you say is correct, but they have a fix for that. They plan to mandate that every single person will have to wear a hat with an antenna. So there will be millions of antennas and that will solve the problem.
4
@Mark - Yes, some of the things about 5G sound like wishful thinking. However, 5G will phase in several technologies over time, creating a whole new network architecture that will include cloud computing that will slash latency.
RT is NOT a news network. It's an arm of a foreign hostile government dispensing disinformation, sowing confusion, and accentuating divisions in the west.
I have said for years that RT should be branded as a foreign agent and license for transmission should be terminated. It's hard to believe that after 2016 we still allow this to go on.
It may not be long before Fox and Trump MAGA troops start parroting this propaganda.
139
@Vizitei
I disagree with your advocacy of censorship. I frequently see important stories on RT that are simply not permissible in the NYT.
11
@Eric Jensen - I am likely to be wasting this one someone who is paid to defend RT, but for the benefit of other readers here is a good rule of thumb:
If it's on RT and nowhere else- it's propaganda and has little in common with reality.
26
@Vizitei Actually, RT is parroting Fox News.
11
Though it's been clear for some time that RT is hugely biased, the science surrounding the safety of 5G (and existing wireless networks for that matter) is far from settled.
11
Get your tempest out of my teapot.
4
If you talk to enough Russians, you begin to understand how spiritually beaten up they are by their kleptomaniac government. You will also begin to understand why the Russian gov is so adept at manipulating the media to control people. The Russian gov knows it can’t catch up to the West, so instead the Russian gov tries to bring down the West. That strategy is the most successful Russian export.
175
@simon simon
Sounds like you see Russia and the US as kindred spirits when it comes to kleptomania.
1
@Eric Jensen Trump/GOP gave $1.5 trillion tax cut to ultra wealthy. If you want to call that kleptomania, I totally agree. But, if you want to see kleptomania on a whole different level that’s so massive that it breaks the spirit of its own people, go to Russia. You see what the average Russian has to go through daily, and you will understand why people give up spiritually.
9
@simon simon can you give us examples? Or cite sources? I’m not challenging Id very much like to see these depths of misery you’re alluding to.
1
I do not know anyone who uses their smart phones by holding them next to their heads. Personally, I dictate everything when preparing a text, and use the speaker function when making or taking a call. Its likely an unnecessary precaution, but a very easy one to exercise.
The worries expressed in some of the comments below remind me of the hysteria about overhead power lines. There's no there there.
6
I was on a flight recently, reading the NYT on my iPad and a flight attendant said to me I should check out RT for a different perspective. I gave him an incredulous look and thought at least it wasn't the pilot saying that.
Americans appearing on RT should be ashamed of themselves. It's treasonous to me.
6
@Brad
Americans are a naive and trusting people. These are characteristics that both make the US a great and an extremely vulnerable nation. Russians are born cynical and suspecting; they also prefer authoritarian leadership (look up "vozhd" on the internet to read about this phenomenon).
7
Whether or not the Russians have an interest in promoting possible dangers of 5G does not tell us anything about whether there are actually dangers from 5G. They are not a trusted source, but that simply means you look at other sources. There are a number of qualified non-Russian sources that say dangers from 5G are at least uncertain. Should that not cause us to hesitate before submitting most of the world involuntarily to the effects of the technology?
9
The fact is we haven’t been around long enough to determine the effects of these ever evolving technologies.
Won’t hurt you ? Too soon to tell .
4
@GW
But the title of this article is very definitive: “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You.”
So, that's a fact, and you should believe it. Is this not the paper of record?
3
@GW
It really isn't.
We have ample data on what kinds of EM radiation affect living cells. Mobile phones aren't anywhere near that spectrum.
11
@Fry
BINGO.
4
Good story, as far as it goes. I don't know, though, how you can write this story about Russia's cyber "warfare" against the US without noting that the President of the United States was helped by Russian cyberwarfare in 2016. The author mentions Hillary Clinton as the target of that warfare, but fails to mention that Trump was its beneficiary, or that Trump continues to deny that the attack even happened. Surely this is urgently relevant to the question of how--or whether--the US will defend itself against these latest attacks.
Really. How can the author not note that the President of the United States has a huge stake in seeing that the US continues to act as if these attacks aren't happening?
@TMSquared
Does your hatred of Donald Trump eclipse your ability to have a rational discussion about a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump?
4
This article has cited RT America as the culprit to STOP 5G. RT America, Russia's arm into the USA, it says, while citing ONCE last May of 2018 and SEVEN times this year in 2019 is trying to bring down American innovation and slow down its growth.
Wow! RT America, in just 8 articles has really done a number on us then, right?
Of course, our patriotic marching tune is sounded here while we read that Putin launches 5G proudly and we are being pulled down by a Russian infiltration.
Well, now, then Senator Blumenthal, Rep. Ann Eshoo and Rep. Suozzi, Rep. DeFrazio, who are simply asking the FCC for the SCIENCE to prove safety are then marginalized.
And the 200 scientist around the world asking for a moratorium on 5G, must also be marginalized.
And our own NTP study in 2018 and the Ramazzini Study are also marginalized.
And the Bioinitiative report must be marginalized.
Oh and the Precautionary Principle needs to be thrown in that boat as well, because the Russians are probably behind that too.
Oh and TRUMP must now be a GREAT PATRIOT and was never infiltrated by Russia because he is PRO 5G.
Well, NYT, you see you can't have it both ways, you can't have TRUMP infiltrated by Russia and friends with Russia and NOW going against RUSSIA.
You're conflicted I know, because you have lots of sponsors here in the NYT and they support the telecom industry.
8 articles??? 8 articles are stopping 5G here? Really?
lol!
27
@Christine Calabrese
The reply of someone who has absolutely no understanding of Russia or of what it will do to undermine our way of life. Same applies to the Chinese, who are even more aggressive.
1
@Frank J Haydn
There are many people in this country (Americans) who are not entirely satisfied with "our way of life". They are the ones who voted for Trump. And there are others, to which political persuasion I belong, who voted for a Progressive candidate (no, not Nancy Pelosi, or Clinton).
Someday we hope to have a candidate that represents us. No, not Uncle Joe.
4
@Christine Calabrese Trump said he wants us to lead in 6G also.
1
Life is so short and soon each one of us must finally admit to this and die.
What purpose is there in scamming others?
Why can't we focus on what's essential in our lives and make them better and more fulfilling?
Money, fame, Internet connections, tech gadgets, flashy clothes and fast cars... None of these define the essence of being alive, human and on a one-way spiritual adventure.
5
One things for sure 5G will see through walls and disable you if need be they are pushing for this new tech hard too.And as always the masses will be spoon fed the 5G and it's amazing benefits and gobble it up. Russia is correct about 5G.
3
@Ą†řąχ
And the Russian people will still be using carrier pigeon and tin cans connected by string.
Where would you rather live?
1
@Frank J Haydn What are we living in the 1960s cold war again with Russia? Id rather live where the elites live far away from 5G.
2
Setting aside the delusions about RT and Russia: All cellphones use microwaves for communications, and each generation has most certainly been more powerful than the last. (WiFi is also microwave based. Radar-microwaves most definitely can cook meat.)
Yes, real studies do exist that tie cellphone use to brain cancer. But until about 2015, the sample size of people who’d used cellphones daily for 20 years wasn’t big enough to draw solid conclusions from.
RT “meddling” in the 2016 election? Neo-McCarthyite excuses for Hillary’s work to elect Trump don’t fly. RT, which is much like the BBC, had next to no influence on the 2016 US election. Hillary went in as an unpopular insider who’d supported an illegal war, and then thought to take massive monies from ibanks when she was clearly going to re-run for the nomination.
Submitted May 12th 7:22 PM Eastern
19
@Yaj
It's interesting that they don't seem to be holding up critical comments with this article. Maybe things are more relaxed on Sunday evenings....
8
I believe that the NYT is correct in its presentation of this material.
What is important here is not that there are documented -- albeit controversial and not wholly accepted -- theories about the dangers of 5G. This information is and has been broadly available to all American consumers for some time.
Rather, it is the fact that Russia -- a country that remains incredibly backward despite the Potemkin Village showcases of some of its larger cities -- is being left out of the business side of 5G expansion, and the US is trying very hard to make sure that remains the case. (China also hopes to use its 5G technology to transmit transcripts of phone calls and text messages to a central server somewhere below Beijing; they too should be kept out of the 5G business.)
Russia's counterattack is to do what it does best: sow confusion and wreak havoc by spreading disinformation to innocent and naive Americans who are too lazy to find out what "RT" stands for.
59
@Frank J Haydn
Think again.
5G Cell Towers ARE much more dangerous
https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/
8
@Frank J Haydn To quote the headline "Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You". The reality is that we just do not know if that statement is true - and this article allows for no possibility that it might not be. If this article had simply claimed that RT was overstating the known threat, it would have been accurate. However, the article allows no possibility for the fact that 5G may indeed be unsafe.
15
@RP
Its laughable that you send me to a website set up by some guy who is worried about radiation.
As I stated above, that is NOT the point of this article, which I suspect you have not read.
18
We have people who believe that vaccines are dangerous. Why are we surprised about this?
9
So Russia has been disseminating "fake news" about the dangers of 5G. Is Russia also responsible for spreading fake news about the dangers of vaccinations?
I looked at the RT report on the purported dangers of 5G on the show hosted by Rick Sanchez, who is a former CNN anchor, and it appeared to be on the up and up. The real "danger" is that when the public learns that legitimate-sounding information about the danger of 5G is fake, it may begin to believe that other reported dangers are also fake, e.g. global warming.
3
The NTP study released November 2018 studied the effect of 10 yrs of 2G and 3G radiation on rats. The result? Brain, Heart and Adrenal Tumors. Whose fooling who?
53
@ladyluck Who's fooling who? Rats aren't humans. The study said that and it's quoted in this article. You're struck many times per day by radioactive particles from outer space which carry energies much higher than radio. There is no health risk from non-ionizing radiation because it physically cannot alter atoms.
50
@ladyluck, I wonder how the study you quoted was conducted since rats don’t live 10 years... their lifespan is about 2 years...
11
@Hakan
Why don't you just look it up (rather than playing 'gotchaism'). The study - not each experiment - was conducted over ten years.
8
Clearly, it's not just the Russians who are purveying this misinformation. I wrote about the anti-5G sentiment in San Francisco a few months ago on my blog; it's an issue that's as old as Nikola Tesla: https://virtualgrowlery.blogspot.com/2019/02/panic-over-airwaves.html
Essentially both the NYTimes and RT are both being misleading. NYT, 5G cannot be declared safe yet. RT is only telling Americans this, not their own population. Both governments care not a fig for their citizens welfare, they care instead about who gets to rule 5G, whatever it’s consequences.. how about the NYT?
6
@Samantha Kelly
It's times like this when the rampant science ignorance of the average American does real harm.
Please do yourself a favor and at least read the wikipedia entry on "ionizing radiation".
3
This passage says it all:
“The higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms,” a RT reporter told viewers recently.
The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say. The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain.
As it is utter nonsense - "exactly the opposite"... does this sound objective? RT was referring, in general, to biological damage that is, in fact, correlated with energy level and frequency (of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation). The penetration or attenuation of EM radiation will affect WHICH tissues (like "the brain") are affected. But this a different medical question. And what about, "Scientists say"... well, this is silly expression. And just click their reference here. It's to an internal, Cornell Univ. occupational safety pamphlet! And their retired Temple Univ. physician and physicist is certainly no expert on the radiobiological effects of dialectric heating from microwaves on tissues, cells, and molecules in living organisms.
There is, in fact, little research on the potential, long-term biological effects of induced, alternating oscillation of dipole polarization in, specifically, polar compounds in the body (at least within the first inch of outer tissues) and the heat generated by this.
22
@carl bumba
I am thankful for objective and informed NYT readers like you!
7
@carl bumba
Brilliant analysis, thank you!!!
1
@Frank J Haydn
I think you misunderstand. @Carl Bumba is offering a critical view of this article.
3
*sigh*
I would expect this graph to look quite a bit different if cellular transmissions posed a major health risk, wouldn't you?
https://progressreport.cancer.gov/diagnosis/incidence
@Dave
And here's one just for brain cancer. Not particularly apocalyptic.
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html
@Dave not if the affect is long-term, no, I wouldn't.
@Dave
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035820/
(This link was shared by another NYT reader in response to this article)
One would hope the moderators at the New York Times would have done a better job in keeping out of this forum the pervayers of dubious, crackpot science.
Sadly, this is not the case because this forum has been infected with so-called "experts" that are spinning their own campaign of misinformation about 5G service, most likely from the same "experts" that helped to elect the likes of Donald Trump in 2016.
9
@Mike M.: Which posts present "dubious, crackpot science," in your view? Please identify them and share with us the contrary evidence.
You see, your saying that something is so doesn't make it so. And your beliefs are not automatically interchangeable with reality.
5
It is so disappointing to see that the New York Times is unable to evaluate medical evidence or report on science properly. Rather than assuming that everything associated with the word "Russia" is automatically disinformation, perhaps it would be wise to actually review the effects of radio waves and microwaves on biologic systems. Spoiler alert: the evidence for harm is deep and compelling.
300GHz to 300MHz is the microwave spectrum, not the radio spectrum. Microwaves are not natural on earth, and impart greater energy than radio waves, albeit to a lesser depth.
The incidence of glioblastoma multiforme in the temporal and frontal lobes, (where you hold your phone and close to the surface), has more than tripled in the past twenty five years, whereas the incidence in other locations has held mostly steady.
Sperm counts (contained in testicles external to the body and close to where one keeps a phone in the pocket) have been dropping for years.
Increasing exposure to EMF is linked to depression, headache, and sleep impairment.
Animal data is even more compelling.
If industry uses this NYTimes article to demonstrate safety, I will consider NYTimes to have aided and abetted the decline of human health that is already happening.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035820/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26300312
37
>>> "300GHz to 300MHz is the microwave spectrum, not the radio spectrum."
Just for accuracy:
We would usually express that the other way around, starting with the lower frequency. And almost definitions include the microwave spectrum in the broader radio frequency spectrum.
That said, and without endorsing any particular argument for the alleged danger of RF radiation, this is definitely *not* a settled question and real health hazards are entirely possible.
4
@Wait a Second
You're right.
5G Cell Towers ARE much more dangerous
https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/
1
@RP It's a sales pitch.
There is little doubt that blanketing the country with 5G signals will reduce the reliability of weather forecasts. As far as the direct health effects of a blanket of 5G signals, along with holding your 5g transmitter-phone on your ear right next to your brain, the science is not as settled as this article asserts.
5
@tanstaafl As pointed out by one commenter above, about 20 years ago the Emeritus Professor of Physics Robert Park of the University of Maryland published a short paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. He pointed out that cell phone radiation is too weak, by a factor of about a million, to break chemical bonds in the body, including strands of DNA. The same consideration also applies to 5G frequencies. Anyone claiming damage from this radiation has to confront this fundamental fact of physics, or they're not doing science.
Park's paper is free:
"Cellular Telephones and Cancer: How Should Science Respond?" Robert L. Park, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 93, Issue 3, 7 February 2001, Pages 166–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.3.166
2
"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The IARC has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,”...
-American Cancer Society
1
Yes, RT may be pushing a propaganda objective, but respected independent scientists also have some concerns about the health impacts of 5G signals. Professor Andrew Wood, of Swinburne University in Australia led a team that formed part of a multi-university Australian study into 5G signals said "We believe the main biological effect of the electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones is a rise in temperature. There are also concerns that there could be more subtle effects, such as links between long-term exposure and certain types of cancer, but while there is some evidence from epidemiological and animal studies, these remain controversial.” So, whilst the health concerns might be unclear at this point, to just dismiss them as Russian propaganda is...propaganda.
9
I think it would help if people understood why certain regions of the electromagnetic spectrum pose real, and very serious threats to human health. Gamma rays, X-rays, and high end Ultraviolet rays are all classified as "ionizing radiation"; they have wave frequencies that carry enough energy to damage human tissues by disrupting proper cell division by physically altering molecular DNA. The abnormal cell reproduction produced by these ultra-high energy waves is how various cancers can result.
However, 5G cellular works in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum that is non-ionizing - and poses no threat to human health.
The ignorance induced paranoia regarding this topic encourages knee-jerk emotional reactions because there is no understanding to counter it. The dumbing down of the American public is self evident in such discussions.
The only "danger" that 5G cell phones pose is that of exacerbating the already out of control addiction by adults, adolescents, and even children.
8
>>> "However, 5G cellular works in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum that is non-ionizing - and poses no threat to human health."
Much too categorical a statement, not supported by settled science. We know with certainty that non-ionizing radiation at some frequencies and some power densities does indeed pose health risks. We don't know for sure what the thresholds below which there is no hazard might be.
5
@Douglas
And what might those frequencies and densities be? Would it require the equivalent of billions of hours of non-stop cell phone use compressed into five seconds of real time? And your source would help?
2
@Douglas
"The radiation produced by a microwave oven is non-ionizing. It therefore does not have the cancer risks associated with ionizing radiation such as X-rays and high-energy particles. Long-term rodent studies to assess cancer risk have so far failed to identify any carcinogenicity from 2.45 GHz microwave radiation even with chronic exposure levels (i.e. large fraction of life span) far larger than humans are likely to encounter from any leaking ovens."
3
This massive build-out of wireless infrastructure is to enable telecom companies to blast their signals into private homes and apartments to compete with cable companies.
Pulse-modulated microwave radiation has been reported by thousands of peer-reviewed studies to cause cancers, DNA damage, infertility and blood-brain barrier damage. It impairs immune, endocrine, cardiovascular, and neurological functions in humans and ultimately adversely affects all living things.
According to this article, “Virtually all the data contradict the dire alarms, according to public officials, including those at the World Health Organization.”
But that is wrong, if you follow the link under World Health Organization it states,“IARC has classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible.”
Furthermore:
“Repeated Wi-Fi studies show oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload - documented in from 10 to 16 reviews.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
The title of this article is: “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You.” Apparently, the sole basis of this so-called fact is that the information comes from RT America.
But decide for yourself if RT America is worthwhile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTf4KHe-M8I
10
@Fourteen14
Your claims are false. There is no "thousands of peer-reviewed studies" to support your fanciful claims.
Your links to sciencedirect(dot)com are fallacious as well since they host many unvetted articles of dubious scientific merit, articles which "suggest" facts instead of providing proofs.
You are simply spreading gossip at this point.
2
Just because the RT Network may have a bias does not mean their position is wrong. It is a very complicated matter. The truth likely lies somewhere between the NYT's position on 5G technology, which is probably also biased, and that of the Russians, as well as many northern European/Scandinavian citizens (and researchers) who are somewhat suspicious of low-frequency EM radiation.
And here's a noteworthy disclaimer buried in this article, "In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab."
Perhaps this is why they referred to the EM frequencies of 5G technology as only innocuous-sounding "radio waves" and NOT "microwaves"... which they clearly are. (Microwave ovens typically operate at 2.45 GHz - actually between cell phone and 5G ranges.) They even found an electromagnetic spectrum that includes all the major categories BUT microwaves on it!
This technology should be regulated by the UN or another world regulatory body, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - and not be forced upon us by one country's private sector (and media) or another's. NYT is clearly not impartial here.
56
@carl bumba Your perspective is quite common amongst the paranoid online community in that you tend to see shadows instead of light that casts them.
Currently there is no real research in regards to the safety of 5G signals and this does bother certain lawmakers (R. Blumenthal-D) who has upbraided the FCC and FDA for having conducted no research on the issue.
This does not mean there are potent dangers, however, and though research in issues of public safety and welfare should be conducted, there is also this current problem of an EPA which is hobbled by industry insiders, appointed by one of the worst administrations ever in the history of the United States.
3
@carl bumba
I read a story about 6 months ago about the development of crowd control weapons using microwaves. The weapons were mostly innocuous although the story did state that at the right level, the weapons would kill. Consider that alongside the mysterious consulate problems where staffers were sickened by some energy emitting weapon...maybe. Seems like a little more scientific testing couldn’t hurt. Might help.
6
@LEW
Yes. Our military has developed these and even deployed them (in Afghanistan, for example).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
4
Those pesky Russians did a similar type of misinformation on microwaves back in the 70s.
5
@Robert Bailey
Many supporters of Individual-1 believed their microwave ovens were spying on them.
3
@Blank Long live the Legend of Individual 1! That legend was a coping mechanism for those suffering from collusion delusion!
@Tim S
140+ meetings between Russian agents and the Campaign personnel of Individual-1 IS COLLUSION.
1
One of the problems is the low educational level of many Americans, who are swayed by unscientific propaganda and lack the tools and training to thoughtfully assess sources and validity of such information. And so too many fear vaccinations and don’t believe that climate change is real, and believe in creationism in not evolution, and thus fall prey to other hoaxes that expose our entire nation to harms of many kinds. Unfortunately this is the result of political and ideological forces, as the Republican and more conservative side of our house has fostered such unfounded and dangerous beliefs and devalued and defunded education in the United States. How ironic that what they have done to dumb down our society may now also lead to our losing this international economic battle for 5G supremacy, while the Russians and Chinese laugh all the way to the bank because we are such unsophisticated stooges.
25
@Tina Komers
Just because you have gone beyond the unscientific propaganda, doesn't mean you've not been left behind by those of us who are not swayed by the scientific propaganda.
Scientific studies and their interpretations are very easily biased. In fact it is very hard to replicate a scientific study.
Hanging your hat on science, except for physics, is not much different than religious belief.
1
“Claims that lack scientific support” is a sentence that is overused when it comes to deciding what to do when confronted by a possible public health hazard.
We always seem to place the burden of proof fully on those raising a concern. This may be the correct approach to a criminal trial, but it’s quite bewildering to continuously see it used against scientists raising concerns about climate change, guns, vaping, or indeed 5G, simply because those scientists are still on the road to discovering results that would add weight to their growing fears.
As soon as the smallest threat is made to our own families, or schools or places of work, we respond immediately with an abundance of caution, until we have removed the threat or proven it does not exist. Why don’t we behave in the same way towards threats to our species?
15
@Danyal
Agreed, it's like saying there is no scientific evidence that hiking in the forest at night is harmful because there's probably no study done on such an obvious danger. Some dangers are not as obvious or easy to prove/disprove.
2
@Danyal
Excellent comment, Danyal. That's precisely it: Waiting for irrefutable proof that something new may be dangerous to humans is to be certain that people will be harmed in some numbers before that proof is amassed.
By the time we've got the details of climate change totally nailed down, for example, it will have roasted us all quite thoroughly.
5
@Danyal: Unfortunately, you are wrong about part of this comment: "As soon as the smallest threat is made to our own families, or schools or places of work, we respond immediately with an abundance of caution, until we have removed the threat or proven it does not exist."
It is absolutely true that in the case of mass shootings, we respond immediately, at least here in the U.S. But we have no removed that threat -- we do nothing about it but argue about what we should do about it.
1
I read and enjoy the NYT but this is quite disgusting. RT which I watch fairly regularly along with UK and American TV as an Englishman living in Europe,is a programme with programmes created and presented by excellent American broadcasters in American based studios .These are refreshingly different from the usual western /American slantedview but give much more honest views yet not really different from the views of many of the articles in the normal American and British media.Telling the truthful reality or possible reality about something is NOT ^SOWING DISINFORMATION^
Someone whoseUS medical column I read often is Dr Mercola who is also concerned about microwave and other radiation Personally I prefer to trust the WHO etc but an alternate view should not becalled ^sowing disinformation^
Sadly it is another attempt to bring in the evil Russians again…it also suggests the American government is getting seriously concerned at people losing trust in their media and turning to other sources.
RT is in fact almost the best AMERICAN tv now available America should ironically be proud of it.
I personally do not believe 5G will be all that dangerous but the more investigation there is the better.This is pure anti Russian hysteria once again
12
@truthlord
RT is in fact almost the best AMERICAN TV now available America should ironically be proud of it.
Right you are.
3
"Alternative views" just like "alternative facts" is disinformation. Falsehoods. What don't you understand here?
5
@truthlord
Dr. Mercola is a highly unreliable "alternative health" source. If this is the level of "expert" one has supporting these claims, and the claims are at the level of public health and meant to sway public policy, I think disinformation is exactly the right term.
6
Has trump ever appeared as a guest on RT America? It seems a perfect venue for his distortions and outright falsehoods, and his best buddy Putin would likely be thrilled to see him there.
I know fox is a willing trump enabler, but trump and republicans are missing out on an opportunity to spread their disinformation more widely.
2
@Alex
He has indeed, during the 2016 campaign! Lamenting the "dishonesty" of the American press.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/09/a-trump-interview-may-be-crowning-glory-for-rt-network-funded-by-the-russian-government/?utm_term=.408fc5979136
Iirc, he or his spokespeople later claimed not to know that the network was Russian-government-owned.
2
We had the same scare over twenty years ago. Was not the Russians then. People largely ignored the claims then and I expect they will largely ignore it now. We tend to call cry subversion for the most inconsequential incidents.
And it IS the Russians now. Or, go ahead, worry about our old friend cell towers all you want. And how scientists are lying about global warming. And of course, the thing they’re pushing now, anti-vaxx loonies. They don’t have to make it up. They just have ways of spreading it, and making it more convincing, just the way they did 50 years ago, when they were commies. Now that they have a huge vat of right-wing stupidity to harness in the US and Europe, they, as a right-wing dictatorship, find it much easier to spread their propaganda.
3
“Now, it is linking 5G signals to brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease — claims that lack scientific support.”
It seems that the Russians are being used as a scapegoat, to not address difficult issues. For example the Democratic leadership did not want to address how they lost to a reality tv star Trump in electoral votes. How it was their party that brought us Trump such as being pro-corporate, pro-war and pro-fracking. People were hurting and the Democratic Party abandoned workers for the money of corporations and the wealthy. It was then easy to blame Russia, especially since many of their donors profit from a Cold War.
The author just dismisses any safety questions. A pre-Trump FDA study showed that 5G is not safe. Profit before health? I would not want to live next to high power lines towers and also distrust 5G cell towers until more data is in.
In the US 90% of our news comes from 6 corporations. They have fired all anti regime change war voices and anyone questioning corporations. It is sad we are at the point of Russian tv rightly questioning the health aspects of 5G, since dissenting voices have been blocked in the US big media. Perhaps a 5G cell tower should be put on top of this papers offices to see if they really believe what they are saying. Also does this have anything to do with this papers joint venture with Verizon?
38
@steve You are spreading gossip here.
There are *no* studies which demonstrate that 5G is unsafe. There are no studies which demonstrate that it is safe as well.
Any lengthy search through reputable online sources will tell you that much. Here is just one of them:
www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/is-5g-dangerous/
6
Well given the limited range of 5G there will most definitely be at least one antenna on top of "this papers office". But unfortunately for the employees inside they will not be able to use the higher frequency bands of 5G because how poorly these high frequency penetrate through walls.
Now the Kremlin has gone too far. It's one thing to interfere in our elections, but don't you dare mess with our high-tech industry.
5
If the Russians say so expect Trump to tweet his “concerns” this week.
5
An enormous amount of criticism of 5G, much of it along these lines, is currently being aired on Nextdoor. In my area it's an epidemic - people are absolutely ridiculous about it.
1
RT is a purveyor of propaganda. This has been proven. The story should be about how we stop this wave of it. Workable plans invited.
31
@CP
"RT is a purveyor of propaganda. This has been proven."
But so is New Knowledge, quoted in the article, a fact revealed by this very paper:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
Propagandists like this play right into the hands of Trump, empowering his claims of "fake news."
4
5g seems to have a way greater business model than just holding a cell-phone and dialing. They want to put transponders on lam-posts every 200 feet.
It reads like an economic development plan. You're going to pay for it one way or another.
It's supposd to account for just about all RF communications by 2026.
Regardless of RT, it's totally legit to wonder about the health ramifications. Imagine a 5G transponder 20 feet outside your bedroom window on a lamp-post.
That's gonna be a new experience for everyone.
40
@cfc No it won't be a "new experience for everyone." We're all entirely prepared for it, because for our entire existence we've been bathed in a much more dangerous and constant source of radiation - a giant fusion reactor in the sky called the Sun.
50
@Shane
Sunlight and naturally occurring background radiation say nothing about the long term effects of these emissions, any more than cosmic radiation proves that x-rays are safe.
6
>>> ". . . for our entire existence we've been bathed in a much more dangerous and constant source of radiation - a giant fusion reactor in the sky called the Sun."
Frequency, specific absorption rates, power density. A few of the topics worth studying before commenting.
6
If the Times has evidence that long-term exposure to these frequencies is harmless, it's keeping its secret out of the scientific literature.
If RT ran stories that lead or PCBs were flagrantly dumped/misused for years, or that 40% of Americans drink water polluted beyond current national standards, that would also be Russian disinformation?
The author might also considfer the nightly scare/crime stories on American corporate TV..... You'll die if you eat this, the streets are full of serial killers, etc. etc. etc.
Do we call that subversion of American society?
Two issues here: there has been no testing of the safety of 5G emissions, and all big media run scare stories.
69
@jrd Radio waves pose no risk to humans. This is because they don't have enough energy to remove electrons from atomic nuclei (ionization). There doesn't need to be a safety assessment for 5G; it's been proven again, again, and again that non-ionizing radiation poses no risk to humans.
We are hit many times per day by thousands of high energy particles from outer space that actually do damage to our cells, yet nobody is affected by them. The sun batters us with harmful UV radiation every day, which is why we wear sunscreen. Nobody gets injured from constantly being penetrated by WiFi, TV, and radio signals, yet they're just as constant as the sun.
21
@Ariel
The health hazards of non-ionzing radiation have been a subject of debate for 40+ years, with studies on either side of the issue.
There is no sound scientific basis for your claims, largely because there has never been sufficient study -- it's not in the interest of American industry to perform it.
11
@ariel
Here's a recent study cited elsewhere in this thread, for starters:
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm
Please better inform yourself. You are 50 years behind current sicence. The claim that non-ionizing radiation has no biological effect beyond heating was discredited many years ago. Even the electronics industry doesn't make that claim any longer.
9
5G cancer risk for kids? Evidently, the Russians don't know us that well.. If they did they would say: 5G cancer risk for the family dog... Now that would throw America into a state of vengeful panic.
9
My biggest concern about 5G is that it won't live up to the hype. My second biggest concern is that adding so many connected devices to our lives will make privacy breaches that much worse than they are today. Cancer from the cell towers is not on the list.
62
@Bill
But what if we put the transmitters on windmills?
7
@Bill 5G transmitters are not towers. They are medium size devices that go into people's homes. I was sent one by my phone company and told it would boost all my neighbor's signals. 5G frequencies are short wave, they need a huge number of transmitters in a small area to work. These transmitters transmit a frequency that is not compatible with the natural electromagnetic frequency of the human body.
2
I just looked up RT on YouTube. The comments show RT's strategy is working. People voiced their concerns about the danger of 5G, and how the government does not care for the American people's health. One person commented they would prefer slower internet speeds just to be safe. How do you combat misinformation in this age of echo chambers?
132
@Paul How can you combat misinformation like this...indeed! Millions of Americans believe that measles vaccinations are dangerous and refuse to have them!How stupid to believe such crazy Russian propaganda...er..er...wait ...it was the evil Russkies who started the anti vaccination scare ...wasnt ...it....?.
3
@Paul
The problem is you have a generation of people who have grown up intellectually incurious and lazy who choose to use what limited brain cells they have on obsessing on the "winners" and "losers" on reality tv.
15
@truthlord
They didn't start it, but they have recently taken to amplifying it to suit their own purposes.
5
Times readers are not the targeted audience. So it's going to work.
6
I don't doubt for an instant the Russian predilection for propaganda, alteration of facts, blitzes of truly FAKE NEWS, but the reality is that we don't have all the facts on how we are endangering ourselves and ALL life on this planet with our technological advances. It is unfair to categorically dismiss all the outcry against EMF's and GMO's and all the other ways in which we are altering the environment in which life came to be. It will take time to see what the effects truly are and a willingness to admit our mistakes. Think of all the ways in which some 'advances' in technology and medicine have proven to be harmful and even deadly with the passage of time and greater understanding. We are not infallible in our technology. Don't dismiss claims that 5-G will ultimately not be beneficial to life on earth. We may come to regret it.
16
@Sheri Portland, Oregon and Brussels not allowing it so far. There is genuine concern and the fact is that with technologies like this, we wait to see until they do harm rather than proving that they do no harm. All those signals bouncing back and forth from satellites will definitely affect us.I happen to be someone who is sensitive to normal cell phone signals and really affected by it. I need to keep my cell phone in another room away from me, whenever possible.
10
@Sheri
Instead of irrationally obsessing about technology why don't you spend some time reading and viewing reputable sources of information, starting with this newspaper.
2
5G presents the opportunity to *decrease* the health risks of communication devices. Many small lower power antennas instead of fewer high power antennas will lower the power levels of communications signals that can possibly do harm to humans.
If you're concerned, don't hold your cell phone next to your head. That's presents your largest exposure to radio communications.
81
@Wayne Seltzer Better yet - if you are really concerned don't hold your cellphone in front of your face when you should be watching the road. (Spoiler alert - you aren't better at it than all the bad drivers). THAT'S the real danger.
15
In contrast to bombs and bullets, radiation damage depends on time of exposure. A good defence against mobile phones is to use them sparingly, just as truly needed.
4
@Wayne Seltzer Are you familiar with the inverse distance rule? Going further away reduces exposure 1/x^2. Moving closer increases the risk by "X" squared. If a 4G tower is 1,000 feet away but a 5G tower is only 50 feet away, then the closer tower is 400 times more powerful. Also, whereas the 4G tower might be hitting you 5 billion times a second with a positively charged wave, the 5G is hitting you 25 billion times a second or more.
12
Russia’s revenge for Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.
43
It amazes me how many smart people believe that 5G (and all cell phones) will kill them without any proof. A quick Google search on the subject reveals mostly nonsense and fear mongering.
108
@dant
The stable genus known as Individual-1 tells his supporters that windmills cause cancer...one wonders if they know about The Google Machine.
10
@dant
When you've actually reviewed the scientific literature, post again.
"A quick google" search may not answer all important questions in this life.
17
Yeah, since when did we start believing that "Google search" tells us the truth! Most of the stuff on web is not peer-reviewed stuff that could stand up to scientific scrutiny.
7