There are two parts to this debate. First I will demonstrate how 5G is not inherently safe, (which CON has the BOP of proving), and then I will demonstrate there is a substantial risk to 5G (which I have the BOP of proving)
DEFINITIONS
While this is a serious debate, I am not going to leverage the semantics of a word. \\
Therefore my BOP requires me to prove that 5G has real, tangible risk.
The concept of “ticking time bomb” is to demonstrate that the assumptiveness on 5G safety will result in negative health outcomes, as if by surprise. It is
TERMINOLOGY
I differentiate between terminology and definitions as the terms explained don’t require the vernacular specificity, and many of phrases. That being said they do need to be explained for the reader.
EMS - Electromagnetic Spectrum. This describes the wavelength (the distance between crest peaks) of how radio waves, light, X-rays move. Radio waves are measured in Meters, GPS, 2G - 4G phones are Meters down to Centimeters. 5G is measured in millimeters, visible light is nanometers.
Signal Propagation and Attenuation. The higher the wavelength the least penetration capacity it has. You can pick up an AM radio in your basement, but not your cell phone. Visible light cannot pass through walls. The shorter the wavelength, the lower its capability to propagate.
Watts, Joules and Calories: Watts is a measure of work. Watts is the number of joules (units of energy) over a period of time. 1 joule = 4.14 calories. I will use these later on.
Constructive Interference: This is a waveform property that states when you add two crests of a wave together or two troughs you will have an increase in the wave power. It is a way to increase strength in a wave, for which EM signals are a wave.
MIMO: Massive Input Massive Output. Multiple antennas are used to leverage constructive interference to create a focused beam in the direction dictated by the output antenna signaling.
A MIMO antenna is an array. There is not one antenna, however a series of over 100 antennas in a CE, and thousands of antennas in a Base Station.
Beamforming: This is the process to allow a MIMO array to focus a targeting signal in a specific direction using constructive interference
Side Lobe: This is a result of beamforming. Noise on the lateral sides of the beam created. Imagine a meteor hits the ground as a “beam” and the wave and shrapnel that propagates around it, That is the same as a side lobe.
Polarization: EM waves are polar, insofar as like a magnet they have a North and South pole. If you rotate how signals are propagated 90 degrees you increase signal propagation. You can send two different signals from the same location, each turned 90 degrees. I theory you could send a much larger number to provide that the offset of propagation is set properly.
Base Station This is unit usually provided by the telco, to provide connectivity and switching for CE devices. Small pico, and femto units could be available as “extensions” where signal amplification is required.
CE. This is Customer Equipment. A phone, a tablet, a connected IoT device.
EM IS NOT SAFE
It has been established that EM causes cancer. Sunlight causes cancer. That is indisputable. However, that is a specific NM band and not all light. So while we establish EM can cause cancer what about the bands that are more applicable to what we are talking about. There has been much work done in this area.
In 2011 the International Agency for the Research of Cancer (a WHO agency) scientist Dr. Johnathan Samet states “The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
International Agency for research of cancer.
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
He goes on to say. “ it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting”
In 2018 a study by the US National Toxicology Program,
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm shows that 2G and 3G EM can cause cancer in rats. While it might appear I am arguing against myself, I have to point out that this study focused on the maximum permitted levels of 3G, as a baseline, and then 4 times that amount as the upper end. Oh so the regulations are sound, one might say. This study shows two things.
- EM at current cm wavelength fields can cause negative biological responses.
- When you change the power, you have a significant impact on the risk. (pin here)
In 2018 the European Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental, and Emerging Risks highlighted that the negative risks of EM were high against ecosystems and species. Here they make it clear that safety is unknown and raise the caution level of 5G to level 3 which is rather significant based on the notices rubric. It is on page 14 of the aforementioned link.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/scheer_s_002.pdf
I have used a few select referenced from both EU and US governments to highlight that EM can not be ubiquitously categorized as safe. Part 1of my argument is proven.
5G ISSUES
I do hope the above sets the appropriate foundation. This is an incredibly complex topic, and making sure I narrowed it down was very difficult. I apologize for the prose ramble.
5G has two problems. Base Stations and CE (phones etc,) The problem is in the MIMO technology they use.
If you recall the study above where I had mentioned that 2g and 3g are shown to cause cancer when rates are higher when the allowed output exceeds regulations. MIMO can make those regulations ineffective. The regulations are based on the output of the station as a whole, NOT o the individual beam.
Because 5G cannot propagate well through walls, weather etc, it needs more power. However, to minimize a wide blanket of power (which is accepted as not being health) engineers have come up with MIMO, This technology is from the ’50s and forms the basis of RADAR. It allows you to create a very high power focus beam of energy in any direction you want.
This is the problem. The base stations need to use the MIMO technology to focus a beam. That beam now exceeds the levels set by the regulators. Lets map out that technology.
- Phone could have 128 antennas.
- Output of the phone is 2Watts max
- MIMO would focus that beam (away from the head for sure)
- SIDELOBES cause the problem. The spill radiation you get from the device exceeds a regular 3G or 4G phonecall. A 60-second call can equate to the same amount of calories energy as a glass of wine!!
- Various polarizations permits progradation even when not intended.
Let us add to the fact you will have 30k - 100k watt base stations every hundred feet.
We will realize through demonstrable evidence that the congestion of 5G, and EM wavelength and power congestion never experienced in nature, will have negative biological consequences.
I have shown EM can be unsafe. My opponent needs to tend to that.
I have laid a pre-emptive framework to show that 5G will be substantially problematic. I look forward to an intelligent conversation.
damn it
christopher_best
Who you gonna call?
What do ghostbusters have to do with 5G?
There is so much out there that is claimed to cause cancer [and little citation] that we'd best not leave the house. Except that we allow so much into the house from outside the house that inside the house is just as carcinogenic as outside the house. Maybe we should just stand in the doorway and hope for the best when the earthquake hits. It's probably a cancer, too.
Meanwhile, Michael Flynn is not only probably guilty, but is carcinogenic, too. Not that anyone would know it. No supporting data.
I'm having fun with this so far. I like the 5G topics
It is helpful to define some terms beforehand for the ease of judging. If you're going to use particularly technical terms definitions will be helpful, but discussing the electromagnetic spectrum and the like is inherent in the topic. Really, you can just use your best judgement.
谢谢 Ragnar
You certainly don't need to explain that humans depend on oxygen, or that there is such a thing as an electromagnetic spectrum. That said, when trying to show harm coming from one of those, some details to that harm will be important. On a debate about immediately converting the rain forests into TP, I might cite how much of the oxygen production on the planet comes from it (not the method trees use to do such); whereas my opponent would likely counter with how little oxygen we actually need (perhaps even using CPR to illustrate his or her point).
Clearly labeling parts of your argument can be very helpful. If you start explaining how the earth formed, I can skip ahead to something I don't need the background on, where my energy will be better spent.
Question for you guys. There are some very important scientific elements in my argument. Is it my obligation to explain those concepts, or can I just refer to them as a common understanding? Things like the electromagnetic spectrum, phase arrays, power measurements (watts, joules, calories). Do I have to provide proof of conversion equations etc?
I want to make sure that I provide enough information, without making it too assumption, or on the opposite too verbose.
Sorry for the noob question.
Nice setup.
Alright cool. Thank you and good luck
Done.
If you make the time for argument a week I will accept