Internet problems?
- Thread starter rickryan.com
- Start date
This is not what the no good lying AT&T guy told me when I asked why we don't have fibre optics in our neighborood!
Tnx, and back to the medical issues.
AT&T was the first to have 5G up and running - I've been in conversations with them regarding their networks.This is not what the no good lying AT&T guy told me when I asked why we don't have fibre optics in our neighborood!
The cost to implement fiber to many locations where there is none (including equipment) is not cheap. I imagine this is the real reason.
That gif is far less effective if you have to click on it... stupid photo insert won't work.
That part could be for sure .. it's more stupid then not. Why would you even say that.
Well, I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink! I'm not going to change your opinion, but you are basically going against the warnings from many scientists across the planet who have real concerns about the technology.
EU 5G Appeal - Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G
In an appeal to the European Union, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries warn about the danger of 5G, which will lead to a massive increase in involuntary exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The scientists urge the EU to follow Resolution 1815 of…
One of the initiators is Dr. L. Hardell, Professor of Oncology at Örebro University in Sweden. He states: “The telecom industry is trying to roll out technology that may have very real, unintended harmful consequences. Scientific studies, both recently and over many years, have identified harmful effects on health when testing wireless products under realistic conditions. We are very concerned that the increase in radiation exposure by 5G leads to damage that cannot be reversed”.
Hardell: “The fifth generation (5G) of radio frequency radiation is now being developed. This is done without dosimetric determination or study of the possible health effects. The media praise in particular all the possibilities that this technology promises to offer, such as the self-propelled car and Internet of Things (IoT). The consequences for the health of humans, plants and animals are not discussed at all. Politicians, governments and the media are responsible for unbalanced information. Ordinary people are not informed of conflicting opinions about this technological development. Health effects from radio frequency radiation are a non issue in the media, at least in Sweden, but also in most other countries”.
What scientists are you talking to? I'm talking to the implementers. I'm researching. I'm talking to the designers, the scientists, the engineers. Are you talking to them .. or are you reading some slide from a search? What are you search terms - because there are TONS of scientists (backed by the FCC) that are saying it's completely safe. The uneducated are saying that it's not safe. Let me type it slower for you - ionizing radiation harms - non-ionizing radiation does not harm. Do yourself a favor and use this point to educate yourself. Please go look up the frequencies for ionizing radiation. Then go look up the frequencies for non-ionizing radiation. When you've read all that, come back and we'll talk. Until then, you're going off of what he said / she said - and that's an uneducated position to take. I was actually in your shoes, and fretting having to work with it and deliver it to users - before I learned what it was - so I get it. I've given you information to educate yourself on this - I lead the horse to water.Well, I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink! I'm not going to change your opinion, but you are basically going against the warnings from many scientists across the planet who have real concerns about the technology.
EU 5G Appeal - Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G
In an appeal to the European Union, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries warn about the danger of 5G, which will lead to a massive increase in involuntary exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The scientists urge the EU to follow Resolution 1815 of…www.jrseco.com
One of the initiators is Dr. L. Hardell, Professor of Oncology at Örebro University in Sweden. He states: “The telecom industry is trying to roll out technology that may have very real, unintended harmful consequences. Scientific studies, both recently and over many years, have identified harmful effects on health when testing wireless products under realistic conditions. We are very concerned that the increase in radiation exposure by 5G leads to damage that cannot be reversed”.
Hardell: “The fifth generation (5G) of radio frequency radiation is now being developed. This is done without dosimetric determination or study of the possible health effects. The media praise in particular all the possibilities that this technology promises to offer, such as the self-propelled car and Internet of Things (IoT). The consequences for the health of humans, plants and animals are not discussed at all. Politicians, governments and the media are responsible for unbalanced information. Ordinary people are not informed of conflicting opinions about this technological development. Health effects from radio frequency radiation are a non issue in the media, at least in Sweden, but also in most other countries”.
Again, you believe some guy's financial advice that doesn't even play in the market - but you fight believing this. Smh. Did you go back to the financial guy and tell him that you don't believe him? Why not?
Last edited:
You believe it's good for us. Why?
There is almost no point to 5G system. They actually have to install MORE towers all over the place because the range of each tower is going to be a good bit lower than the range of the current 4G towers. This will all cost more money to implement, and maintain. Which means that the extra costs will be passed onto consumers. That means cell phone bills will become more expensive.
We don't even need 5G. What is the real purpose? To minimize latency? How often do we even have latency issues? Not often these days. Aside from downloading Giant Games or a large software update, we simply won't realize we need these types of speeds.
Secondly, They will have to change the data plans all around. People will blow through their 3 GB data plans in no time!
Don't get mad because I am right about the negative potential effects of 5G though. We will hear about the profound negative effects 5G will have on many different things including more potential cancer cases because of it in the coming years. People like you will just blow that news off though. As long as nothing happens to you, who cares, right?
Not picking sides. Just saying one of the oldest logical fallacies is “appeal to authority,” and “Trust me, I’m a scientist” has been the death of more than one factory worker (radioactive paint), technology support staff (people in the 40s and 50s working with isotopes in glove boxes *with no facial protection*), small town homeowner (Love Canal, anyone?), and even the average cigarette smoker of the first 50 years of the last century (“Four out of five doctors recommend Lucky Strike; the smooth menthol flavor that calms your nerves and eases that cough due to cold!”). Oh, and of course the recent opioid epidemic that was by and large *caused* by doctors in cahoots with big pharmaceuticals.
“Trust me, I’m a scientist” should set off alarm bells for anyone who hears the phrase used in that patronizing way...
GJ
“Trust me, I’m a scientist” should set off alarm bells for anyone who hears the phrase used in that patronizing way...
GJ
5G is the new climate change...We supposedly have a mass conspiracy among the scientific community...
I was very curious about it too and did a lot of reading and Tigger is right. The radiation created is slightly more than the microwave you have in your home and likely less than an industrial microwave. The increase in radiation would be from the amounts of transmitters they have to lay to make it operate uninterrupted but still nowhere near a dangerous level.
Ricky did you realize your car gives off radiation? Might be time to return to horse and buggy
I agree you should always check but when the information is common knowledge....
The biggest downside of all this that ive experienced is that Ricky is far more chatty on the board...
cc
cc
I heard this morning that one school district in Maryland is banning the use of Zoom due to security issues...
True Dunlop. They have apparently found that “end to end encryption” doesn’t necessarily include the middle, so there have been some incidents of incursions on meetings and classes with hate speech, porno videos, and the like.
Jeff, I don’t want to get into a thing; we both know roughly where we stand politically. But seriously, NONE of the things I mentioned above that were at one time consistently touted as “perfectly safe” give you any pause? Not even for a second? Many experts say “perfectly safe.” Other experts, many, are saying “not so much.” No need to drag the Luddite/conspiracy angle in when folks are just asking appropriate questions. BTW, “common knowledge” is poison. Just sayin.’ Same people that liked Ricky Martin...
As to critiques that common everyday objects could be just as dangerous, as in cellphones and laptops and cars, well— YES! We all make assessments daily based on preferences and risk/cost analysis. I’m not particularly fond of people making decisions *for* me about those things though. We have *enough* hi-frequency waves of all kinds traveling through our skulls uninvited as it is.
GJ
Jeff, I don’t want to get into a thing; we both know roughly where we stand politically. But seriously, NONE of the things I mentioned above that were at one time consistently touted as “perfectly safe” give you any pause? Not even for a second? Many experts say “perfectly safe.” Other experts, many, are saying “not so much.” No need to drag the Luddite/conspiracy angle in when folks are just asking appropriate questions. BTW, “common knowledge” is poison. Just sayin.’ Same people that liked Ricky Martin...
As to critiques that common everyday objects could be just as dangerous, as in cellphones and laptops and cars, well— YES! We all make assessments daily based on preferences and risk/cost analysis. I’m not particularly fond of people making decisions *for* me about those things though. We have *enough* hi-frequency waves of all kinds traveling through our skulls uninvited as it is.
GJ
Do I believe it's good for us? No - but that has nothing to do with its health factor. Again, please read and understand - as previously stated, there might be a few new towers but 5G will hardly be on them - because they have no distance. These will have to be installed on street poles and buildings. 5G is not just about latency. It is about more speed and more devices. Everyone wants all these things to work on the web and they want it to work fast. There's only one way to accomplish that - more service points and faster service.
I believe it's not good for a completely different set of reasons. IoT is only as good as the weakest link. Everyone wants everything now - but they are not concerned about the security problems coming with it.
Based on your statement, we don't need new cars either - I mean every car can do 70 - so why do we need anything new? Same applies to computers, houses, speakers, .. well, everything.
Last edited:
No problemo .. I'm Livin' La Vida Loca
There's been rumors about cell phones and towers causing cancer for years. Funny how we haven't seen an increase in cancer cases with the dramatic rise in cell phone use over the last 20 years.
So now it's 5g that's going to do it? That's handy because we don't have any historical data to say otherwise yet.
We should always be mindful of how these things could affect health. But I'll rely on scientific data, not some lame news reports. Back in the 90's, some guy sued Motorola and some cell phone company because he got brain cancer. He assumed it was because of his cell phone. Turned out to be nothing, but the news articles, news shows, and other reporting about it sold lots of ads. The part of the story that it turned out too be nothing didn't quite generate the ad revenue and excitement the original story did.
I wouldn't want the facts to get the in the way of a good story, but the actual number of brain cancer cases has gone down, not up, over the last 30 years. Pretty strange if the RF signal from cell phones was so dangerous.
So now it's 5g that's going to do it? That's handy because we don't have any historical data to say otherwise yet.
We should always be mindful of how these things could affect health. But I'll rely on scientific data, not some lame news reports. Back in the 90's, some guy sued Motorola and some cell phone company because he got brain cancer. He assumed it was because of his cell phone. Turned out to be nothing, but the news articles, news shows, and other reporting about it sold lots of ads. The part of the story that it turned out too be nothing didn't quite generate the ad revenue and excitement the original story did.
I wouldn't want the facts to get the in the way of a good story, but the actual number of brain cancer cases has gone down, not up, over the last 30 years. Pretty strange if the RF signal from cell phones was so dangerous.
Last edited: