This post may contain affiliate links which won’t change your price but will share some commission.

Is 5G Safe? Plain Talk About How 5G Works

Sharing is caring!

Is 5G safe?

Many people have questions about 5G. What is 5G? Is 5G safe? Will 5G make it easier for me to get hacked? In this article, we'll answer common questions about 5G technology based on the best available current information.

Is 5G Safe? text with woman looking at cellphone

5G Questions and Answers

What is 5G?

5G is a type of wireless technology. 5G includes a number of next generation cellphone and cellular data transfer technologies. 3G was really the 1st generation, and then 4G built on that. 5G takes most of the wifi and 4G tech and increases its performance 100 to 1000 times.

4G or 4G LTE or 4G WiMax is the current cellphone technology in widespread use throughout world. 4G provides 1mb to 25mb of bandwidth.

1mb is short for 1 megabyte, and is generally an abbreviation for storage of data. 1mb is about equal to a paperback full of text (1 million characters including spaces). Data links are measured in mb/sec or megabytes per second. Some reports will show 1mbps which is one mega BIT per second. It is 8x less than a 1MB link. Overall think 8mbps = 1MB or 1 mile per hour and 800mbps = 100MB or 100 miles per hour.

Will 5G cellphones be safe?

Unless the FCC permits a higher wattage or there is some unknown specific frequency that impacts humans, yes, it will be as safe as 2G, 3G and 4G phones. Even up close, the radiation (which can be measured by the wattage) is not high enough to cause problems. (See below for radiation comparison.)

Aren't some frequencies more dangerous than others?

Arguably, yes. The strength or power of the frequency is what can create risk. A low wattage signal is always less risky than a high wattage signal.

Why do some frequencies go through walls and buildings better?

This is a physics and engineering question, but I will summarize the answer. Each cellphone service uses a frequency and some frequencies have a shorter or longer wavelength.

An example is simple 2.4ghz WiFi. It reflects off glass but will mostly go through drywall and other materials. The power of the signal drops off because it broadcasts out in all directions. The frequency (wavelength) of the signal and its power determine how much damage it can do. Even 3 feet (or a meter) away dramatically reduces the power you are exposed to, and that decreases more and more as you get farther away.

How far away from a 5G transmitter is safe enough?

A cellphone radio tower has more wattage, but a TV, FM or AM radio tower has even more wattage. Don't go inside the fence around a radio tower. With the proposed smaller micro cells for 5G, the wattage will be lower but there will be many more radios. It is likely these will be on telephone poles or small masts on roofs or sides of buildings. Unless you are touching the smaller 5G devices for extended periods while they are operating – there will be very little risk. A cell phone tower has more wattage, but they also tend to be up in the air and have fences around the base. Don't go inside the fence.

How far away from a 5G phone is safe enough?

A cellphone has very low wattage. In general the wattage of a cellphone is so low it allows you to hold it (and the signal radiates out the back side of the phone away from you). There is very little risk from a cellphone. Even with the lack of risk, we don't recommend keeping your cellphone in your pants or bra. (See editor's note at end of post.)

Could prolonged exposure cause problems?

We have had smart cellphones since 2007. There  are over a 4 billion in use. There are no widespread reports of directly attributable medical conditions. I can say so far, no, there are no clear risks to using a 4G cellphone. If cellphones increased brain cancer even by 1% there would be an increase of 40 million cases, which we are not seeing. Unless there is some unknown impact, 5G will be the same.

Can I absolutely tell you that cellphones, WiFi, TV and other signals will never hurt us?

No, I cannot ever promise 100% safety – no one can. But, the observed facts are overwhelming and indicate cellphones are safe. There are numerous agencies and not-for-profits throughout the world funding research to confirm the safety of RF (radio frequency) exposure, and none have found a problem yet.

The nature of science is that you can only prove something false though, so NO ONE can absolutely guarantee the safety of all transmitted energy even at low wattage. We have not found any obvious risk in 10+ years with over a 4 billion live test subjects. The following are excerpts from various studies. If we ever find one that shows risk we will list it here.

  • From American Cancer Society. “the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones might be able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported the idea that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.”
  • From National Cancer Institute. “Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans (2).”
  • From European Public Health (EMF) “Research indicates that a person who has used a mobile phone for up to 10 years does not have a higher risk of brain tumors or other cancers in the skull. This also appears to be the case for someone who has used a mobile phone for more than 10 years but more research is needed to confirm this.”
  • More FCC Cellular Information

Are there any real risks?

Yes, here is a list of the known risks of 4G cellphones – which will very likely apply to 5G cellphone technology.

  • The newer smartphone batteries have higher energy density and manufacturing defects or misuse has resulted in cellphones exploding. The lithium ion batteries may burst or explode, because of a puncture (which could be caused by dropping your phone) or because of excessive heat or a short circuit within the battery.
  • There are increasing issues with addiction to cellphones. They trigger dopamine levels similar to drugs, and can create addiction.
  • Using a cellphone while driving is dangerous. The NHTSA estimates 3,450 lives lost in 2016 alone. They also estimate 481,000 drivers use cell phones while driving during daylight hours which, has caused an unmeasured number of accidents.
  • A cellphone can interfere with any device using the same frequencies. Also devices like a microwave oven can interfere with devices using the same frequency. Putting a cellphone close to a device can impact nearby frequencies. This has been tested in numerous situations, interfering with IV pumps and other devices when the phone is very close to the device. Many hospitals do not allow cell phones in clinical areas, due to potential interference.

How is 5G different?

5G will very likely have 3 levels or “ranges” of service. Wide ranging for rural areas, community and local. Rural towers will cover thousands of feet to miles from a tower. Community is approximately 3000 feet (1000 meters) from the mini tower or micro tower, and the highest speed would be within 300 feet (100 meters) of the micro cell. There will be many more towers, mini towers, micro towers and micro cells. The increased number of towers COULD increase risk, but the wattage is the most important measure.

Will it be dangerous to be in a building with a micro tower or micro-cell in or on it?

Not likely. Again unless the wattage is increased the energy will not be enough to cause harm.

Will cellphones using 5G be faster?

Yes
3G is about 200k to 1MB per second
4G is 1mb to 3mb per second in rural areas to as much as 25mb per second in urban areas
5G will be 5 to 10mb per second in rural areas to as much as 7,000mb per second in urban areas (proximity to a micro cell will be key)

Are 2G, 3G, and 4G cellphones safe?

The simple answer is it appears that cellular wattage levels are safe. Over 4 billion people are using cellphones and there is no obvious immediate risk to people, other than the phones exploding if the batteries are bad.

Any technology has a risk of being used for spying or theft. The main challenge with 4G and now 5G is that it is used more. More users means more attempts at attacking and more “temptation”. So in a nutshell ALL popular technology is a target. The entire internet is a target. So the bad news is anything we use is risky from a cyber security risk. See Internet Security – 12 Steps to Avoid Computer Viruses and Identity Theft for more information on internet security.

Is low flying satellite internet safe?  

There are a number of proposals for low flying satellites to provide internet access across the globe. This has been associated with 5G but its not the same. The wattage involved is very low by the time the signal reaches the ground. Most likely this will require a dish to send and receive. The FCC approved 20 low-Earth orbit satellites using the Ka (20/30 GHz) and Ku (11/14 GHz) frequency bands. For more info see “Low-latency satellite broadband gets approval to serve US residents“.

Comparisons of Radiation from Various Sources

Radiation is around us every day. The sun creates it, microwave ovens create it, even human bodies create it. But there are also an increasing number of man made sources of radiation in the form of radio, cellphone, TV, WiFi and other transmitted or broadcast energy. Is man made radiation safe? It depends on the amount of energy you are exposed to.

Energy SourceMax EnergyFrequencies *1Notes
WiFi Router.1W to 1W
(100mw to 1000mw)
2.4ghz and 5ghzToo low to warm water, effective exposure is .25watt
iPhone X.3 to 3wVarious frequencies including 800mhz, 2.4ghz/5ghz (wifi) and cellular frequencies depending on carrier3G, 4G, 5G – Extremely low wattage. Phones use 2.4 and 5ghz for WiFi (home, Starbucks and work). Phones also use a number of other frequencies based on the carrier and type of message or signal being sent.
Existing 3g/4g cellular radio tower40 to 100wVaries with the carrierLess than a microwave oven up close and signal drops based on dispersal VERY quickly.
Your Body100wRadiated heat primarily, some very low electricalThe brain alone uses about 20 watts
New 5G radio services40 to 150w*Varies with the carrierLess than a microwave oven up close and signal drops based on dispersal VERY quickly. Big difference is the number of LOCAL towers (on telephone poles and sides or tops of buildings in urban areas).
Microwave Oven1,000wFrequency range that includes 2.4ghzLocally powerful, can interfere with 2.4ghz WiFi if not well shielded. Heats water effectively.
The sun800,000wVisible Light, UV and terahertz radiationVery powerful, resulting in a sunburn in a few hours or less

References

Smartphone Power: Cellphones and other devices use various RF (Radio Frequency) channels or specific groups of frequencies. The power is measured in wattage, generally mw, or miliwatts. In the USA the use of radio frequencies is managed by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). All broadcast wattage is managed and confirmed by the FCC. Here are a couple of links if you want to see maximum transmit wattage:

Isn't all Radiation Dangerous?  There are naturally radioactive materials all around us. A clay pot gives off radiation and plants will not survive with radiated energy from the sun. There are also an increasing number of man made sources of radiation in the form of radio, cellphone, TV, WiFi and other transmitted or broadcast energy.

The documentary “Pandora's Promise” contains an interesting comparison of background radiation levels around the globe. 

The sun is the largest source of radiation. The energy hitting you when you are laying out in the sun is 500,000 to 3 million times more powerful than any common cellphone or WiFi signal. If you are REALLY close to a WiFi transmitter or Cellular transmitter it might only be 500,000 times more.

Are the rules the same everywhere for acceptable exposure? No. Each County has its own rules and even different frequencies for the same named technology. Here is the max power (wattage) for transmission by country .

This post was originally published in January of 2019.

If you have questions, other references or updates to improve this post please leave a comment below.

Is 5G Safe text with woman looking at cellphone

More Home Business/Home Computer Articles

Editor's note: There are a LOT of alternative health sites that are up in arms about all wifi and EMF exposure. Our youngest son (who works with energy healing) says that his hand feels uncomfortable if he holds an active cellphone too long. We're not seeing a clear correlation between exposure and illness at this time – but I still don't carry my cellphone directly on my body. August uses a bluetooth headset connected to his cellphone, so he doesn't have the phone directly against his head for long periods of time, either. We don't keep the cellphones in our bedroom at night. The tech is still relatively young in the grand scheme of things, and some individuals may be more sensitive than others.

August Neverman

This post was written by August Neverman IV. August is the Chief Information Officer and Information Security Officer of Brown County. He's served on several emergency preparedness teams during his tenure at a local hospital, as well as undergoing emergency response training during his time with the Air National Guard. He and his wife, Laurie, live with their two sons in a Green Built, Energy Star certified home with a permaculture twist.

Some other articles by August Neverman:

Similar Posts

31 Comments

  1. I would recommend checking out the videos by Joe Imbriano of The Fullerton Informer who goes into great detail in numerouls videos of just our dangerous 5G is to humans especially children.

    Also, Max Igan with The Crowhouse has excellent videos also covering how dangerous it is and how little time we humans have to stop it being completely rolled out. Once it is complete, there will be no going back. Please, check these sources and speak out at the very least, for your childrens’ sake if not for your own.

    1. We recognize that you are concerned, and we are not telling you to change your mind. However, unless we see some corroborated evidence (not theory or wild accusations) we will not add to the fear mongering. If cellphones were dangerous (ie caused cancer) there would be millions of new cases (outside normal trends) in the last 10 years. Those numbers are not supported. If we do find evidence of 5G risks we will change the post (in the real risks section) as we have with other posts. Science is about creating theories and then trying to prove them right or WRONG. So it is very possible there is some other neuro-chemical/neuro-electrical effect(s) that are so far unmeasured. Personally, I suspect 5G will be far more of a social problem than medical.

      With countries and agencies all over the world doing regular cellular and general RF testing, I suspect we will see numbers soon after release if there is any real risk. Similar to numerous countries banning glyphosate (double blinds showing causation) even though the USA doesn’t ban it (yet). We will keep continue research but at this time we see no impact. All the best, and being skeptical is good. So read our articles and others and draw your OWN conclusions.

      1. Thank you for your reply.

        We must all go beyond what is reported by those in charge through their main stream and bought-and-paid for alt media mouth pieces.

        Fear is a natural response to real dangers in the world. If you view my comment as ‘fear mongering’ then I feel bad for you. Your very stance that you continue to support your positions so as not to ‘add to the fear mongering’, middle of the road in other words, tags you as part of the problem. Maybe you don’t feel the world has any problems.

        Here is a film that is extensively researched and fully documented that may give you some insight as to what is really going on behind the scenes:

        The Minds of Men | Official Documentary by Aaron & Melissa Dykes

        Yes it’s long. Yes it’s frightening. Yes, it’s all true. I urge you and others reading this comment to take the time to view the film with an open mind and just ask yourselves: what if?

        Until you can say you have taken the time to read and listen to other points of view, and discuss points ingelligently, articles such as these are puff pieces meant serve Satan. And yes, evil is real.

        I’d prefer to know sooner rather than later what evil is approaching. Especially for our children and grandchildren.

        Respectfully submitted.
        ~Cate

        1. Cate,

          We August first submitted his article to me for editing, I told him he needed to include data on the radiation exposure, as I knew there were many readers with concerns. He researched and included the available data. That data may change over time, and if/when it does we will update the article, but these are the numbers we have to work with right now.

          As for saying that maybe we feel the world doesn’t have any problems, that’s not logical given that I have dedicated large portions of the last ten years of my life helping people to solve their problems, as has my husband.

          There are always people in positions of money and power pulling strings behind the scenes. One of the most egregious examples of this is the takeover of medical treatment by the allopathic model. If you haven’t watched The Money Takeover of Medicine (shown below), I encourage you to do so.

          I’ll also note that by adding the video you recommended and the one I’ve linked above, we could lose ranking on the site from google, because they’ve been dropping the ranks on sites that offer non-mainstream information. Many alternative health bloggers who are good friends of mine have seen their traffic plummet in recent months due to google algorithm changes favoring Big Pharma solutions.

          It’s the world we live in, and it’s ugly at times.

          Laurie

          1. Thank you for your reply and the video link.

            I have seen that video. It is also contained and referenced in a much more comprehensive video by Corbett Report: How Big Oil Conquered the World – https://youtu.be/mWB2lotgByI

            The dangers of 5G is about so much more than radiation. While extremely dangerous, it’s not the worst of it. Clearly you have not taken the time to view the videos I recommended as they all contain well documented information that would have augmented considerably ‘the numbers [you state] we have to work with right now’ which you are relying on for your article. I don’t think most people would care if you choose to do a disservice to yourselves but to publish an article so limited in accurate, current and well documented information is a dangerous disservice to your readers.

            Lastly, the most telling comment in your reply is your concern over losing your ranking on google. There are worse things that gnaw on a person than losing google ranking. Google, as well as the other technology giants, are themselves losing ranking as more and more individuals around the world continue to wake up, speak out and take action, all at great risk to themselves. It takes great courage to do so but that is what is needed right now if we are to pass on to our progeny a better world than what we have right now and certainly better than what the dark forces have in store.

            The ‘ugly’ world (as you called it) we live in can only improve if We The People work to make it so. It appears you are only concerned with your popularity on google. How very sad indeed.

            Respectfully submitted,
            Cate

          2. “Video unavailable”. Do you have another link to provide?

            Just stumbled upon your site … and this article. I’m a common sense kind of guy and work in the engineering field and agree with you 100% (until proven otherwise).

  2. Thank you for doing the research and giving us your conclusions. I don’t have the time to research so this was very helpful. I also appreciate the explanations about what the “technology speak “ means. I feel I have a better general understanding now.

  3. Thank you for this timely information, however, I will remain skeptical, until all the facts are
    in. It is my understanding that in order for 5G to work, a series of mini-towers will be placed
    at strategic locations in order for this to work, it will be more powerful in order to accommodate
    “the internet of things”. I agree with you regarding the social issues, also.
    Again I do appreciate your research.
    Linda

  4. Laurie and August,

    I find your article interesting in that you point out all the mainstream information available on the subject and do not want to add theories (as you call them) to the piece. I also understand your concern about google downgrading your ratings.

    Many years ago, when I was in the military, I worked on any and all forms of electronic equipment; communications, navigation, radar, etc. When a certain radar model was installed on a military facility for training of technicians, the local public was told that it was safe and that they had no reason to be concerned. When they actually activated the equipment and performed their test run, as the radar antenna swept the area, it blew out lights, televisions (old crt tech) and other forms of tech back then.

    Needless to say, the folks in the are were a little upset. The base was forced to limit the actual radiating pattern of the radar to simply scan over a lake next to the base so as not to cause any more issues with the “locals”.

    Students in this class were shown the “power” of this radar by using it to cook birds in mid-air flying over the lake. And they were further instructed that if they were close to one of these radars, they could not climb onto anything that put them in line of sight for a mile less they risk internal tissue damage.

    Now, I realize that cell phones can not generate this level of power, but, they are also sooo much closer to our bodies. I also believe that some folks are more susceptible to this than others.

    But, I also believe that our modern society is so entrenched in the all-mighty dollar that they follow beliefs such as “it’s only illegal if you get caught”, and “easier to ask for forgiveness later than ask for permission now”.

    Companies have proven time and time again that they will only put forth what information is not damaging to them… until they get caught.

    As for the fearmongering, society has become such a huge flock of sheep that the only way to get them to consider other than what they are fed through mainstream media is to try and shock them into waking up and questioning what they are told.

    And the fact that google is essentially “censoring” your ability to compete by blocking out this “fearmongering” should prove to you that you’re not being told everything you need to know.

    So, I will jump-off my soapbox now and you go right ahead and continue to not object how google is treating you so that you can make a living and I will cancel my subscription to your emails. That’s life in these times.

    1. Jose,

      Thank you for demonstrating some of the biggest issues facing our society today – unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, jumping to incorrect conclusions with incomplete information and assuming that others aren’t intelligent and/or engaged enough to even take a look at information unless they are scared into doing so.

      First off, we didn’t say that there was no danger, only that the danger isn’t likely to be much different from current wifi danger. We also encouraged people not to wear phones directly on their person or sleep with their phones.

      Second, assuming that we don’t object to how we and others are being treated by google, and implying that we cater our content to follow the status quo. Of course we object to google’s penalizing non-mainstream information – but there’s not a heck of lot we can do about it. They are a private company, and they have been manipulating search results from the start – they’re just getting nastier about it lately.

      We have registered our site with an assortment of other search engines, maintain a social media presence across a variety of platforms, have the newsletter, and do some public speaking events. There are only so many hours in a day, and August is often stuck at his main job for 10-11 of them, but you go on preaching from your high horse about how terrible we are.

      If making points with google or raking in the big bucks were our primary concerns, why the heck would we have over 100 natural health articles on the site that share things like how to use the free wild plants growing in your backyard, honey or an old sock stuffed with uncooked rice for medicine?

      Unlike you, I respect our readers and don’t think of them as “a flock of sheep” that need to be shocked. The documentary that Cate recommended is styled to create fear, which to me distracts from the information in the documentary. The documentary that I embedded about the healthcare system also presents facts that challenge the status quo, but it’s styled in a matter of fact manner. There’s a difference.

    2. Radar is generally 50,000 Watts to well over a 1,000,000 Watts – the cellphones have a peak of about 3 watts (varies some). That is a HUGE variance. A microwave oven uses 2.4ghz to cook at 1000w. A radar is 50,000 to 1,000,000 watts (50 to 1000 times a microwave oven). Also the radar is a more focused beam ie directed energy instead of open (spherical radiation). Radiation decreases on the inverse square law. In simple terms the radiation (wattage) at 4 feet will be 1/16th that at 1 foot and it keeps getting lower as you get farther away. Which is why radar doesn’t go very far unless it has a directed dish AND/OR huge amounts of power. Also why radar doesn’t cause cancer to people living near an airport.

      You are absolutely correct, cellphones are close to the body but it is still only 0.25w to 3watts max. That is not going to cook anything (and has not in untold experiments). We get FAR more radiation from other sources including the sun. I don’t entirely trust the US Feds or European science guys but simple observation of over 4 BILLION uses indicates there are no correlative diseases with proximity (so far).

      You are correct about Google, Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook and even the mainstream media. Mainstream/Social media has a narrative that likes specific perspectives. We have not changed our reporting (other than to add disclaimers for liability). We have lost Google rank, Facebook reach and Pinterest reach. So we are not changing our style, method or convictions. Laurie and I both believe in science. As an example, through our own observation and research, Laurie and I believe glyphosate (roundup) is bad (regardless of the mainstream and US Fed reporting). We base some of that on observation on our 25 acres of land. The soil was dying (moss growing on the ground). We switched leasing to an organic growing and the moss is almost entirely gone in just a few years. Now some experiments overseas are supporting our belief and observation that glyphosate is a bad chemical. Kind of feels like the feds saying “DDT is good for me”.

      If we come across anything that indicates 5G is introducing some new physical risk we will post it without question. Personally I am far more concerned about the lack of: civics in education, absence of scientific reporting, numbing/dumbing down of media, near ban on study of history, lack of outcomes based government investment, lack of true research and fear of open dialog. The idea that an “argument” is now “bad” scares me. Debate and argument is a good thing. It is how I learned a great many things. Argument doesn’t mean combat, but we are letting our language shrink and be reframed in ways that eliminate communication.

      But back to 5G, at this time the planned wattage and frequencies of 5G look safe based on numerous tests world wide (at least so far). I suspect/speculate that it might be possible for some frequency correlation. Like some people experience around windmills (which has been double blind tested). I am not completely anti-windmill but there is at least correlative proof of people sensing the windmills frequency. So it is possible a portion of the population might be impacted by 5G resonance/frequency, but given the BILLIONS of users this will become apparent quickly because of the gigantic sample sizes.

      It is good for you to be skeptical, and we don’t want to change your mind. We will only report what is factual (as of the time of the articles). You draw your own conclusions – as we want free thinking, liberty loving people to learn for themselves. If there any repeatable tests, confirm able correlation or especially causation – we will definitely report it.

      All the best.

  5. Since I bought my first cell phone, probably in the mid-90s, there has been the question – Is it harmful? Since the introduction of the smartphone, the concern seems to have increased. Thank you, August, for bringing out the seemingly unnoticed fact that none of the “predicted” ill effects have arisen. Yes, 5G is a new technology that has as-yet untested effects. Or rather, the effects haven’t shown up. The naysayers at the 3G and 4G levels haven’t had their fears realized. Now the technology, which so much of our society demands, is changing to accommodate the wishes of the growing masses. WILL it be harmful is the main question, and the answer, we can’t say yet. August even “admitted” that.

    I spent twenty years as a field service instructor. One of the technological advancements I’ve seen is touchscreens. You’ll find them everywhere today. Probably the most reliable and maintenance free version utilizes something called Surface Acoustic Wave technology. Basically, a high frequency signal bounces between two glass surfaces. Where the user touches, that signal is absorbed, thereby creating a reduction in signal at the receiver on the other side of the screen. What absorbs the signal? The human fingertip. The frequency of the signal? In the micro-wave range. Yes, the same range that is used to cook food. I was often asked, “Will it cook my finger?” I always replied, “Yes. IF you could keep your finger there for a VERY long time.” The same is true of a cell phone. IF you could keep it TRANSMITTING continuously at the rated power output (see August’s chart) it would take a VERY long time to do any tissue damage. If you’re worried about whatever kind of damage you imagine a cell phone can create, you have a couple of choices. 1 – Don’t use one. Believe it or not, it’s possible to survive without one. We did it for decades. 2 – Like August, use a Bluetooth headset. Unless, of course, you think the Bluetooth frequencies are going to create damage. In that case, see choice 1.

    I had intended to craft this response over four hours ago. Instead, I decided to watch the video Cate posted, thinking there was going to be some correlation between the generations of cell phone technology and the content of the video. I saw none. I admit it was an almost interesting history lesson. If I was supposed to be shocked, horrified, angered or otherwise incensed by the clandestine actions of our government or the collusion of our government with so-called medical professionals of questionable ethics, that program failed. I’ve been around long enough to not be surprised at the lengths to which those “in power” will go to garner more of that power or increase their bank accounts.

    What I did find interesting though was Dr. Breggin’s statement, at the 3:17:29 point, “… the way to get money was to play on political and social fears and on racism.” In that regard, nothing has changed except the venue. Pundits and the media are still playing that game, albeit with a new twist. Now all those “black hats” are working their way through our education systems and information sources in an attempt to mold the way the citizenry thinks. Yes, there are plenty of us, including the owners of this site, who recognize this. We all fight this indoctrination the best way we can.

    To your comment, Cate: “There are worse things that gnaw on a person than losing google rankings.” I can assure you that statement is correct. When your income is affected by an outside entity, by which I mean someone other than yourself, you will be “gnawed”. Consider the place you work. If management makes a decision that requires you to conform, in whatever way, or have your income diminished, what do you do? On a site like this, which relies on quality content and popularity, and to a small extent, link commissions to drive sales, Google rankings ARE important. This is the reality of conducting business on the Internet. Just because you don’t see the influences that “gnaw” at them outside of this site, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They do.

    The term “non-mainstream information” does not equate to “fearmongering”. That’s the term Google uses. It’s within the rights of the owners of this site to protect their time and investment by adhering to the restrictions imposed on them by the same organization that imposes them every other site. The Internet is a big “place”. There are plenty of sources of “non-mainstream information” out there. Feel free to explore.

    I, for one, am glad to have August and Laurie sharing their knowledge.

  6. Hi Laurie and August, just adding my two cents but with peace and sincerity. Here’s the latest newsletter article from GreenMedInfo.

    Citizens Up in Arms Against 5G Wireless Technology Roll-Out: Are Their Concerns Justified?

    I’m sure you’re firmiliar with Sawyer Ji. Another reputable source for information.

    I’m definitely against any form of pollution of Mother Earth. I do believe over time we all will learn 5G will be yet another source. I’m concerned even with our smart meter. I’ve developed more heart palpitations than before since they installed it 2 years ago. I think in the case of 5G we are entering the next chapter…
    I’m currently at stage 0 breast cancer. Thank God it hasn’t progressed yet, however I need to take these things into consideration knowing I’m knocking on breast cancer’s door. Along with other things that contribute to cancer, will this aggravate? Who knows?
    Thank you for being brave enough to look into it. Even with high ed background, we’ve all been duped into believing things were one way when they weren’t at all.

    1. The link points to studies. The studies indicate what we noted; high wattage is dangerous, but the lower wattage is inconclusive. At least one report notes the interaction with a pacemaker which we noted in the risks. At this point I recognize the unknown of 5g may be scary, and it is possible it will cause problems BUT the wattages involved indicate no risk at this time. I had basal cell carcinoma and there is no correlation between exposure to the wattage levels of cellphones. However, I would do WHATEVER keeps you in a positive state of mind. We appreciate your concern and are not trying to get you to change your mind, only reporting what we can confirm or know directly. We hope that your cancer doesn’t progress (and hopefully goes away entirely).

      We will update the post if there is any known correlative or causative risk(s). Again my primary concern for 4g/5g, AI and other technology advancements, is that we are becoming digitally dependent at various levels without “backups”, effectively dumbing down. All the best.

  7. Dear August and Laurie,

    Having read through this entire page, I find it bizarre that you assert in several places that were there ill-effects to cell phone and wifi use, because of the huge sample size of people using these technologies we would have seen such ill-effects show up in clinical data, which you claim we haven’t.

    What about the dramatic increase in the incidence in a wide range of cerebral illnesses over the last 40 years – Altzheimer’s disease, ADHD in kids, Parkinson’s, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Chronic Wasting Disease in deer and humans, mad cow disease, the incidence of depression generally etc.? These are all brain diseases or ailments. Why would you discount the very plausible theory that since our brains, of all the organs of our body, are most sensitive to disruptions of our electromagnetic environment, that we would of course expect to see the ill-effects of electromagnetic pollution show up in our brains first?

    You also make frequent reference to the sun as the hugest source of radiation we are commonly exposed to. But you fail to mention that our bodies evolved specifically to make use of solar radiation as our most important power source, and this is why we nearly always experience its radiation as a gentle flow of warming heat. On the other hand you son feels a disconcerting sensation in his hand when he holds a cell phone for too long. You yourself have basal cell carcinoma. Perhaps it’s time for you to wake up, rewrite your article, and get rid of your cell phones altogether?

    1. We are not telling you to change your mind, just asserting our observations. Regarding my basal cell carcinoma, both the physician and I believe it was due to repeated shaving of a birthmark (and rough patches of skin). I would shave a layer of skin off and it would bleed (this has been directly shown to be correlative). Since I stopped shaving no more rough patches have occurred. I am still not entirely comfortable with a beard though, but I will have to get used to it. I still use a cellphone but almost always hands free (there is 100% correlation and causation to distracted driving due to cellphones causing accidents). We encourage our readers to trust their gut. Based on your comments your gut says we are wrong, and I will not challenge that.

      There are a LOT of types of radiation. This a pretty thorough review of the types. https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

      Cases of Alzhiemers and ADHD increased BEFORE cellphones so they cannot be correlative as wifi / and widespread cellular useis only about 15 to 20 years old at max. The correlation for ADHD circa 1955, seems correlate to increased vaccinations (but that is highly debated and unaccepted by the medical community).

      The increase in Alzheimers is even older circa 1906. The recent “increases” in cases are disturbing, but correlate to an aging population. 10% of people age 65 and older and 32% of people age 85 and older have Alzheimer’s disease (which has not varied hugely since 1950s). The recent correlation to gingivitis to Alzheimers seems crazy but science wins. So bleeding gums may be the tie to Alzheimers. 1950 8% of population was 65 and older. In 2017 it was 15.6% that is nearly double which matches the increases in diagnosis.

      Regardless, continue to challenge us, and others. Push direct observation and science. You do not have to agree with us. Remember science can only PROVE something WRONG it can’t prove it right. So it is possible I will need to update the post and indicate that the lack of correlation/causation is wrong. At this point we are leaving it as is. All the best.

      1. Not sure I can agree with you. The pollution of our electromagnetic environment has been going on a lot longer than the advent of cell phones, so I don’t think identifying the dates when certain diseases were first recorded as “pre-cell phone” works to dismantle the argument that 5G will contribute a new level of pollution to a problem that’s already causing clear problems for our brains and bodies.

        On a theoretical level you nail it, of course. Science is a mechanism for disproving flawed theories, and can’t positively assert that any not-yet-disproved theory is correct. But to have a better world we have to be able to assert a positive and not have science nitpick it to death while the forces of money continue on their consistently destructive path. To most people it’s patently obvious that cleaning up environmental pollution, not adding to it, is essential to a healthy, happy future. If I’d asserted that the pollution of our oceans, and thence our food chain, with plastics and other chemicals is responsible for some other list of maladies, would nitpick that? Maybe, as a scientist, if you changed your name to Everman from Neverman you’d gain a new perspective. Love and peace.

        1. Adam,

          You seem to deliberately misunderstand or misinterpret everything that’s said here. Our actions demonstrate our beliefs – from our Green Built Home and creating a wildlife oasis on our homestead, to helping people learn how to use their weeds instead of spraying them with poison, to encouraging people to grow their own food or source it locally, and so on.

          If you feel passionately about this, I’d suggest you dedicate your time and energy to providing people with what you feel would be safer alternatives. I always appreciate having options.

  8. When I read this, I was concerned, as you seem clearly unopposed to this technology. People read you as if you were experts on what you write. Now I know that you don’t promote this, however, it is true. You go on to defend your stance even in light of many comments here to the contrary via personal experience. I would urge you to read the following post, and the clearly listed ‘experts’ given in full. They include Human biology experts, EMF experts, WHO, Lancet publication International Agency for Research on Cancer), A biochemistry Professor, A National science Panel meeting, and a 2019 Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Hearing. You did not really give any listed ‘experts’, or the ones given were governmental (really?) Or those who profit from the destruction from or use of, cellphones (Cancer society, FCC)

    I urge you to reconsider your stance on this subject. We need MORE people questioning this forced technology on us, not fewer. And in this case, just saying no will NOT suffice! We WILL be bombarded with these pulses and forces even if we are damaged beyond repair, without our permission and with nothing to do in order to avoid them. I would like to include a comment on the post I listed: Quote:
    Thank you for trying to spread this message. I fear for the world and especially children as 5G continues to increase. I am in my 30’s, mother of 3 children and have been an EMF refugee for 3 years. I can not leave my home or have a normal life. We have had to move to the country away from cell towers and wifi. I am grateful to be healthy again after being bedridden for 2 years, but depression definitely takes over at times in mourning a life where I could go to a grocery store, a restaurant, take my kids to the library, travel. If I leave the house I immediately get horribly nauseous, joint pain, migraines, extreme weakness and fatigue and it takes about a week to recover. If anyone has an unknown illness and all tests come back negative you may want to consider you could have EMF sensitivity. I only figured out my illness by going to Sanoviv, a hospital in Mexico that does not have EMFs. I recovered in 2 weeks there after being very sick for a long time. Then I came home and was immediately sick again. I moved to a home with 5 acres, no wifi or cell towers close by and have been healthy ever since. If I had not gone to an EMF free environment I don’t believe I would have ever figured out what was wrong with me. Long comment! Just wanted to share my story in case anyone else is suffering the way I was for so long. Also, if anyone has successfully healed their EMF sensitivity I would love to hear your secret! I have a very long list of supplements, therapies, and remedies I do daily to try to heal, but no success yet.

    1. We respect your opinion, and to prove it we are posting it.

      As is noted in my BIO I have worked in the information technology field for over 30 years, 21 in IT/Healthcare. I have worked around the 5G transceivers a couple of times, and have been around 4G transmitters (as they are more common) including WiFi RF point to point microwave and other technologies that have real proven risk if used incorrectly. Many of these technologies are like fire. At a distance it warms the house, up close it will burn you. If you are far away you have trouble detecting it. The power involved are less energetic than fire, so the power drops off FAST.

      I will in no way say the problems people find don’t exist, however it is possible that there were other sources for her recovery, could there have been mold, toxins, allergies or other environmental impact in the previous home/living environment. Food, air pollution, water pollution, social/mental etc. and I am not trying to downplay any of those. People need to live where they feel good. I recommend dirt therapy, woods exposure, and in general spend less time indoors (which I fail at regularly given my career). If a person is truly RF / EMF sensitive – I suggest a grounding mat for the bed and work areas.

      Many of the studies referenced do not use the wattage/EMF levels found in a home or business. They are 1000s if in millions higher. I encourage anyone to read those studies and compare wattage levels FIRST not outcomes.

      If EMF/RF exposure was a serious issue there are billions of people living in dense, high EMF/RF locations. If EMF/RF was a direct issue there would be millions of people reporting this via social media, studies, news etc. I liken it to the sound impact from Windmills – there are studies that show it can impact people and that some people are more sensitive to it. There are people complaining AND there are credible double blind studies. There are no widespread examples of this (so far) for 4G or 5G. Also given the small amount of 5G implementation there is very little anecdotal evidence that could prove (or disprove) some current theories.

      NOTE: Common Sense Home chose NOT to accept money from a cellular provide to ensure an independent perspective. So we have not been paid by anyone to write this.

      I am totally ok if you choose to be wary of the technology as it is new. There is zero doubt that there has been a huge increase in exposure to EMF (in large cities/buildings). However, even the negative studies (direct high energy exposure) have shown more likelihood of correlation to biological issues than impact of the frequencies and power involved in 5g. In a nutshell, in studies all over the world there is no direct correlation at the exposure levels measured today or expected under 5g. I stand by the article, however, as with ALL true science, if I find double blind studies or direct empirical evidence that contradict my findings, I will publish it.

      1. You did; however you left out the link so others could read the sources and different/opposing citations to your post.

        You clearly will not change your opinion. Nor will I. As you mention, there are not sufficient studies or length of time to firmly point to 5G being toxic to the planet as well as to humans. The fact that there are not “millions” of people reporting issues regarding EMFs does NOT prove your theory that 5G is safe. Doctors are not equipped nor are they looking to target 5G or other sources of EMFs as the cause for those who come to them looking for unexplained pain and symptoms. They only look for the current medical professions allowed causes. To do otherwise would be to go counter to their profession and profitability. It IS all about money, you know. THAT is why they find ‘nothing’ when faced with someone who can’t explain their medical issues when it very well could be 5G/EMF caused.

        I disagree with your findings and point out that CAUTION should be the main course of action until the new ‘science’ (here, 5G) is THOROUGHLY investigated and there are studies that categorically prove/disprove it’s safety. Which could take, and should take, years. But when has that ever stopped the mainstream community of doctors, technicians and politicians from using something that has not been examined, and experimenting on us humans in the past 50 or 60 years?

        1. Carol,

          You started your last comment by noting, “People read you as if you were experts on what you write.” August has worked with related technology for 30 years. What does it take to qualify as an expert?

          I am not going to publish the link to the site you linked, because that author is not an expert on wireless communications. For instance, their assertion that 5G somehow increases online security risks is flat out inaccurate, which brings into question the accuracy of the rest of the article. The “sources” in the article you linked include the article “Researchers put probiotics in food and supplements to the test.” What the heck is an article on probiotics doing listed as source material for an article on 5G?

          We still recommend limiting exposure, as noted:

          Don’t carry your cellphone on your body.
          Use a bluetooth headset so you’re not holding your phone up against your head.
          Don’t keep your phone in your bedroom.

          Did you click through and read the other studies listed? I did, and August did (although he didn’t say that specifically in his response). What he did note is that the studies use way the hell more radiation than phones normally give out. One of the two studies referenced looked at monkey cells in a petri dish exposed to high levels of EMFs. That’s as bad as the studies that “proved” cholesterol was bad by force feeding oxidized cholesterol to rabbits.

          You are correct that a theory cannot be proven. Scientific method dictates the use of a working hypothesis. Information is then gathered that supports or does not support this hypothesis. Real science is never “settled”. It’s an ongoing investigation.

          If you are still struggling with ongoing health issues, I encourage you to research German New Medicine. I find it fascinating, and have absolutely found a correlation in my own life with the theories it proposes.

          Also, if you believe you are sensitive to EMFs and/or other radiation, I highly encourage you to get grounding mats to sleep on and stand or sit on during the day, as well as spending time outside in direct contact with the earth (no shoes, unless they are grounded). Grounding can help reduce inflammation and cortisol levels – and walking barefoot is free.

  9. It’s important to stick to the known facts when you are comparing something like “4G to 5G”, as I believe this article did. The big difference between current usages and the new 5G usages will be that some carriers (Verizon, AT&T) will be using millimeter-wave frequencies, which do seem to heat body tissue when moderate power levels are in the near field of an transmitting antenna. These are the same frequency ranges used with the new airport scanners, and also by some police radar units.

    It would be unwise for someone to be climbing the tower while the cell site is transmitting, as it would probably cause blindness due to instant cataracts, followed by other tissue trauma to the person up there. The FCC has published what is known about this effect, and it has been well-studied.

    For the hand-held transmitter (namely, your new cell phone) the power levels are not anywhere near these levels. This is true for several reasons, not the least of which is that the little battery inside cannot support such high power operation for very long. This is also well-known and well studied.

    I’m not saying this is all safe and clear — I’m only saying that 5G is no worse — or better — than 4G for human exposure. And on a personal note, I have been working as an RF and radar engineer for nearly 50 years, and I have been bathing in radio energy both at work, and via my ham radio at home (and in the car) for most of that time. I’m a little biased, but I don’t think there is anywhere near the danger that some people are afraid of.

    Your mileage may vary, as they say, but it appears to me that the author has it right, where he suspects that “5G will be far more of a social problem than medical.” This has been my experience as the hand-held cell phone went from a businessman’s tool, to the teenager’s status symbol, to the babysitter for the toddler. It has ruined “dinner with the family” and that has nothing to do with RF or which “G” it’s using to communicate. It’s purely social in that case, and if I were to point fingers as to how it has damaged the human condition, I would probably start pointing there first.

    More people have been killed by cops shooting them mistaking their cell phone for a gun, than by innocents being exposed to RF in the near field. If I wanted to save people from cell phones and unintended side effects, I would do something about that first.

    1. I totally agree with your statement “I’m not saying this is all safe and clear — I’m only saying that 5G is no worse — or better — than 4G for human exposure.” Thank you for the comment, getting feedback from an engineer in the field reaffirms the engineering principles.

  10. Hello August. I read the article and the comments, and my only quibble, as an electronics guy and a computer guy, is to present all the quantities in rates with a K or M or G to mean Kilo or Mega or Giga, then a b or B to means bits or Bytes, then a ps for “per sec” if its a rate/speed. Ought to add a note that the subject 5G meaning “fifth generation” is an unfortunate overloading of the quantity 5G of ram or the speed 5GBps which is how fast we can download. Scrub all reference to mb. m is for meters or mill. Perhaps a mention of the inverse square law where a sound intensity or an RF intensity drops by half when the distance from the emitter doubles. Good article.

    1. Yes, you are absolutely correct. I need to clean up the nomenclature, and update it a bit. Thanks for the recommendations and totally agree on the inverse square law, techy but the rule to know for wifi, radio frequency and radiation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *