HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: Computing Forever

Is 5G Technology Dangerous?

3416 ratings | 51087 views
Support my work on Patreon: http://ow.ly/3ymWFu PayPal Donations Welcome. Click here: http://goo.gl/NSdOvK Sources: http://ow.ly/tRMG1017tZp 5G Technology: Potential Risks To Human Health: Excerpts From Scientific Conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvPg1AyQ43I IARC article: http://ow.ly/x3aL1017tA9 World's Largest Animal Study on Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link: http://ow.ly/ive31017tAa cancer.gov article: http://ow.ly/ETQx1017tAc Creative commons, royalty free images & Videos used in this video presentation are sourced from https://pixabay.com/ and Wiki Media Commons. These are public commons images. https://pixabay.com/en/videos/futuristic-technology-waves-896/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/blue-digital-earth-technology-13067/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/smartphone-scroll-emails-messages-3172/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/strommast-clouds-sky-power-poles-10749/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/street-walking-crowd-people-urban-1694/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/future-orange-internet-www-web-2319/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/atoms-traces-elementarteilchen-16584/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/smartphone-scroll-touch-android-90/ https://pixabay.com/en/microwave-oven-appliance-kitchen-29056/ https://pixabay.com/en/videos/atoms-electrons-energy-orbital-8579/ Help Support My Channel. Buy Computing Forever Merchandise, Mugs, Hats, T-Shirts: http://ow.ly/3v3TWq Subscribe to my Second Channel: http://ow.ly/XgZm100E1L6 SUBSCRIBE TO THIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78 http://www.computingforever.com KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA: BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKf/ Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/davecullen Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/ComputingForever Google+ : LACK78: http://goo.gl/k4gWsg Google+: Computing Forever: http://goo.gl/Q8gZpY
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (1220)
Emil Lindhart (1 hour ago)
while seeing this is thought of the effect 4G might already have on animals, i searched "4G effect on bees" and a ton of articles about that showed up. tech giants and their lobbying have become a cancer on the world.
JMORDANTV (12 hours ago)
Cancers take 10 years to develop, if you get exposed to a carcinogen you will find out how harmful it is 10 years after exposure, sometimes you need repeated exposure for decades to get it. Even if that energy causes you cancer finding a correlation will be very tricky since you are also exposed to things like Pizza and Splenda.
David Bolha (14 hours ago)
Faraday Cages will become popular. 😏😄
HEALTHY and FITNESS (19 hours ago)
*How Smartphone Negatively Impact Your Health and Life* https://healthyfit07.blogspot.com/2018/06/smartphone-health-risks.html
symbolsandsystems (22 hours ago)
If 5G is a population reduction tool; where is 5G not being deployed?
David Bolha (14 hours ago)
symbolsandsystems EMP is the salvation. 😄
John M (23 hours ago)
It's all about the mechanism. There is no mechanism for this type of radiation to do anything other then increase heat. Rat-based studies are cheap and unreliable, so there's going to be a lot of them with less then accurate results.
geoffas (1 day ago)
Some say that trees suppress 5G transmissions. Problem? Nah, not really - just cut down the trees! https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/22/sheffield-tree-protester-arrested-for-playing-plastic-trumpet
Lin Yen Chin (1 day ago)
Longitude is properly pronounced as *lon-g-too-d* not "long-g-too-d" ... when's the last time you heard a sane person pronounce it your way when speaking of longitude and latitude coordinates of a map? ...
Charles Steiner (1 day ago)
You're not asking the right "expert" when it comes to the dangers of 5G. You need to talk with Dr. Jack Kruse. He KNOWS and KNOWS he KNOWS. LOL! He's got all the answers about 5G. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kt3_oQ8ns
Oscar Campbell (1 day ago)
It's all about frequency, same goes for the frequency range of light and even sound. And, detrimental cognitive effects (like sleep- and attention disturbances), malformed blood and damage to ovaries seem more likely primary dangers rather than cancer imo. While not lethal, quality of life while living is quite a bit more important to me. I find the cautionary principle reasonable, when in doubt. Of course, everything points to there being a very extremist elite today which seems insatiable in their want for control and power (common trait among deeply disturbed people), and needless to say a network of tightly distributed receivers will make it possible to pinpoint just about anyone with a very high resolution. If more of these transmitters also have frequency-hopping abilities, they can definitely be used to affect processes in objects nearby - like people. I don't think tinfoil will be enough ;-) XD
EX0MATRlXTV (1 day ago)
Research Stop5G.net
Andrew North (1 day ago)
I don’t trust it it’s unnatural.
WildManTheGamer (1 day ago)
So can 5G turn me into Control Freak from Teen Titans I am sold
rippawallet (1 day ago)
5g will change humanity as we know it
David Bolha (14 hours ago)
rippawallet Network of the Beast.
James Esteron (1 day ago)
Thank you for expressing your concerns honestly, whilst also detailing the lack of actual evidence of harm. Very unbiased, I love it.
Joseph Thompson (2 days ago)
5G is NON-IONIZING radiation. This means it does not cause cell damage through DNA destruction. It is harmless.
nazra7 (2 days ago)
Any frequencies close to matching the lengths of individual molecular material that makes up a structure are going to reflect off of those structures. That would cause those structures to (at least partially) absorb energy from, and be at least slightly damaged by, those frequencies. The damage which would occur would depend on 1. the intensity of the frequency, 2. how close of a match the frequency is to the length of the molecules in the structure, 3. the strength of the structure's material, and 4. the amount of time the material is exposed for. If 5G is non-ionizing and doesn't produce heat, then I'd imagine it would, at the very least, cause a tingling sensation which could (plausibly) turn painful over time as the vibration of our skin cells gets increasingly amplified over time from the exposure to a frequency that closely matches the length of our skin cells (causing our skin cells to vibrate, which might be painful if not out right shaking our skin cells to death), just like how an opera singer can break a glass with the right tone in her voice by causing it to vibrate more and more. Watch the Mythbuster's episode on it if you don't know what I'm talking about or don't believe me. Hopefully I'm not entirely correct on that though.
David Bolha (14 hours ago)
nazra7 Mythbusters lost credibility with the free energy episode.
mynameisben123 (2 days ago)
5G is way off. We aren’t even close to meeting the 4G specification, which supports 1000Mb/s speeds. Why would we need to change the technology when we can’t even saturate what we currently have.
Doctor Games101 (2 days ago)
5G is not publicly available yet. Unless I miss the boat, I am also hearing that some people in Canada (like my friend there) has 5G and nothing is not occurring health wise.
Michael Harding (2 days ago)
Isn't there a difference between 5GHz radio frequency and 5th Generation cell speeds? I think there's been a little conflation.
Kuj2 (2 days ago)
It's been so many years, Dave. So many years. And you still pronounce it 'nucular'. :D Just say 'new clear'!
error ASMR 🍭 (2 days ago)
fuck yes it is beyond dangerous control grid and i am already sicker in a 5g area ive never had issues in my life till i moved to an area where smart meters are all over and 5g towers are by where i work i now find my body dying, skin thin, all sorts of issues i have never experienced before.. and over all malaise
David Bolha (14 hours ago)
error ASMR 🍭 Faraday cage man. 😏
Trevor Grynol (2 days ago)
We are billions . Why does this happen? I'm back woods, and it don't matter where I go if I don't want: it don't happen. Stuck in the system but not a sheep ( I hope
Marc Anderson (2 days ago)
5G is a wavelength like 802.11ad you could probably turn your back and loose signal
randomd00d19 (2 days ago)
Im personally hyped for 5g. I love new tech. Honestly... we just need to get a damn cure for cancer already. Everything seems to be linked to cancer nowadays, so prevention seems near impossible with or without cell towers causing it. I totally understand the concern though.
David Bolha (14 hours ago)
randomd00d19 There is a cure for cancer. Look up Tulio Simoncini's story, John Kanzius's research,... 🙄🤔
Mark Magenis (2 days ago)
The World Health Organisation needs to be treated with caution, it is an international lobby group taking its lead from pharma Companies and professional scare mongers. They ban the press from meeting, have secret votes and minders sent round to reeducate descenting voices at their conferences. Their list of cancer causing risks now includes toasted bread, making their warnings meaningless once you see the full context they created.
jeremyrainman (2 days ago)
They say "environmental levels of of cell tower radiation".... which unfortunately for them is not well defined enough. They could be taking the power right at the cell tower and calling that "environmental", but unless you sleep next to a repeater, you're not getting that radiation, and radiation intensity falls of by 1/r^2.... so what were their "levels" of radiation they exposed things to? Also the study that found cancer in animals linked to cell tower exposure doesn't say in the description what kind of animal? Were they birds? or were they rodents? It makes a HUGE difference.
Alfred Morris (3 days ago)
Doesn't 5 g have poor range ?
badreality2 (3 days ago)
Here's a video that states that 5G Wi-Fi radiation does the most damage to a female's ovaries, since there is no radiation protection for her eggs. It alters the mitochlorian D.N.A., that is ONLY noticeable, in a person's grandchildren. This generation will see NO health risks, but the generation 40 years from now, will feel the effects of what we've lived through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BToqEvCAdPo&t=601s
Scaenicus (3 days ago)
5:40 Before you unmount your *smoke detectors*: *You* probably don't have a radioactive one! These are only used where regular smoke detectors (which you use in living spaces) would produce false alarms too often: Machine halls (e.g. metal dust), storages in farms (e.g. flower dust), etc.
Luke dotdotdot (3 days ago)
Greed , the nature of greed assists us in believing what we want, rather then what's true,I'm certain there is danger to it, I'm still one who uses the microwave regularly. The sun and solar radiation have been cancer causing since the Flood, When God took away our outer icy shell ?! ...?
Better safe than sorry. Clearly we should be getting conclusive evidence one way or the other before rolling these things out en masse, simply because it's much harder to get rid of them than it is to implement them. People become dependant on them, but I guess that's what they count on.
Joe Blow (3 days ago)
Call me paranoid, but I don't keep my phone in my pocket when I'm at home or work, I keep it on a desk a few feet away. I figure it's the TOWERS that produce the most energy, but I just don't like the idea of any sort of high-energy device near my balls...
Salty Nuttzack (3 days ago)
Do the Non humans get to live?
The real MacGyver (14 hours ago)
why the fuck do we need 5G anyway?? 4G is sufficient for the rest you can use wifi especially in urban areas soo dumb
Starlight (3 days ago)
Please visit www.emfwarriors.com
The real MacGyver (3 days ago)
fuck the possible cancer if it get absorbed it heats us! on one side they tell it doesnt give us canser on the other hand they proven that wlan affects plants or cellphones heat us and they already use microwaves for riotcontrol
Crud O'Matic (3 days ago)
This is why I don't have a cell phone. Fuck that shit.
ȘȚɄƑƑɎǾɄ1oo (3 days ago)
WTF!!!
TheTundraTerror (3 days ago)
Hey _smokes cigarette_ did you know _drinks alcohol_ that radiation _lives in large city_ is bad for _eats junk food_ your health _sits around all day_
Xendava (3 days ago)
5G is a form of radiation.Yet nobody knows if its hazardous. Really? People must like being lied to. OF COURSE ITS HAZARDOUS!!!!
alphamonder (3 days ago)
Nooo... The flesh is weak... The machine is strong...
musashi939 (3 days ago)
Forget that rat studies afair they debunked this. There was a study on rats that were already in the middle of their life expectancy and not to mention it was a species of rats that had a high probability of getting cancer.
Derek Drake (3 days ago)
Meanwhile, rural areas still use dial-up. 😂
Dom Vasta (3 days ago)
Skin absorbing low energy, non-ionizing radiation like this will just warm it up, might even burn some subcutaneous fat, it won't cause cancer, only ionizing radiation does that, it's no worse than being exposed to a microwave, and since your phone is 1/100th the power of a microwave and you are 10x bigger than anything you could put in the microwave, you'll be fine.
Indiana Jones (3 days ago)
I wish i could post I picture of how close this new cell tower is to my house. Just went up last year maybe 50 yards from my deck.
Charles Dog (3 days ago)
'Hebrew University study' Just trust us goyim
Abraham Elkayim (3 days ago)
Yes, 5G is dangerous. it radiates the skin resulting in a skin cancer
Coleman Morrissey (3 days ago)
"In the long run we are all dead."
Edward Elric (3 days ago)
Unless it's ionizing radiation, I'm not concerned. It lacks the power to affect DNA. Visible light is far more powerful than radio waves.
fishface494 (3 days ago)
its all about control, those that reign over us are getting paranoid that their evil little ways, ridiculous greed and corruption are becoming known, there are enough of us to cause them problems at the moment, i wonder if other countries/races will have 5g towers using the same frequencies ? its become pretty obvious that a certain group of people are trying their best to destroy whites at the moment and particularly white European Christians . [ please do your own research , dont be a feeble minded brainwashed left wing twat, governments and those behind the governments cannot be trusted, a certain german leader knew what was happening yrs ago but no one listened, we have bought this on ourselves ]
Rauli Kumpulainen (3 days ago)
It doesn't. Not anymore than existing wavelengths. It is not ionizing radiation.
unleasheth (3 days ago)
the 2.4g signal messes with the water in your body. 5g will mess with the oxygen levels in your body. Its funny they mapped/linked up these frequencies to the same exact ones your body uses for water and air. couldn't pick any others for internet use could they?Coincidence? Don't be fuckin fooled. This is a joke!! Visit thefullertoninformer.com
Henry Baker (3 days ago)
Microwaves are in fariday cages so the microwave radiation can't get out
unleasheth (3 days ago)
watch Joe Imbriano via the Fullerton Informer on youtube if you wanna know ALL about 5g
Robert Kelly (3 days ago)
Anyone who thinks 5G bad is a lunatic.
Words of Welke (3 days ago)
The biggest problem is the control mechanisms it will have over our body. mind. and habits.
jancreighton (3 days ago)
other effects beyond the thermal effects of wifi and telephone radiation are not being considered. Voltage gated calcium channels in cell membranes are activated, causing catastrophic malfunction. This is a non thermal effect with serious health consquences. Google it.
Christopher Lien (3 days ago)
My respect for Computing Forever just increased by a huge magnitude. Almost nobody dares touch upon the subject of the holy wireless communication devices that are propping up everywhere - smart meters being one of the new technologies emitting high levels or "none ionizing" radiation.
Atomicskull (4 days ago)
How exactly do they expect a "non radiation" wireless device to work, exactly?
trav v (4 days ago)
It's not about moderate use, the waves are flying all around us all the time from the towers.
trav v (4 days ago)
I like to err on the side of caution but as with these types of programs there is no way of opting out of being fried by some wireless shit.
VauxhallViva1975 (4 days ago)
The risk is minimal. Most of the 'Dangers of cell-phones' is scare-mongering. 5:05 - You nail it right there. This is totally correct. I work in the RF field, so am well versed in the potential dangers of high RF exposure. The typical cell-phone output, as pointed out at that time index, is between 500mW and 3,000mW(3-watts) or so. This is not of a sufficient output power to 'Cook your brains' or any other kind of scare monger's claim. The output power of the average cell-phone tower is around 15-watts. Standing right beside the antenna of a cell-phone tower with that output will cause you no harm at all. Microwave energy is NOT radioactive energy - something that people often confuse. The danger comes from a combination of BOTH the output power in watts, and the frequency. Having said that, you would not want to be the conductor between RF out and ground at any power above 30W or so. If you were to touch the RF output of a transmitter running 50W or so, and ground at the same time, you will know about it, and it could leave you with RF burns that can take a good six months to grow out. But this assumes you are touching the RF out and ground at the same time(so YOU become the antenna) - not very likely for 99% of the population. Possible for a technician who was not being careful when working on a radio tower. As for the general population - zero risk.
Cold Coffee Gamer (4 days ago)
Have you seen how much radiation is emitted from smoking tobacco? Fertilizers containing radium dramatically increase the yield of plantation and it's decay elements: radon, lead-210 and polonium-210 stick to the leaves. When burned, these decay elements release alpha and gamma radiation. The average smoker is exposed to far more ionizing radiation than an astronaut who spends 6 months in the ISS...
Chickenmanic Mrt (4 days ago)
Interesting that rat test reminds me of a weird trend showing up in young men nowadays that even none smokers seem to be dying of heart attacks in larger numbers through out the years
NOONTIDE (4 days ago)
It's time to wire everything up again...
Spiralofhope (4 days ago)
There's nothing wrong with any of it. Just like smoking. Oh wait.
Michel Granger (4 days ago)
The question we should ask ourselves before accepting being guinea pigs for the telecommunication industry is: Do we really need to give our governments the means to spy on us 24/7?
PsychoIncarnate (4 days ago)
When I was young, there was this power thing in my front yard and the local kids used to gather and sit on it. I'm not sure what it's called. Some kind of energy transformer? I get sick imagining the amount of radiation I probably got form it
darthdude sith (4 days ago)
@1.50, you can bet your ass "they" know exactly the effect it will have on us, that's precisely why they're going ahead with it
Eco Mouse (4 days ago)
It will change your gender.
Florida Aviator (4 days ago)
Everyone seems to think "radiation" means particle radiation. EMFs are not dangerous. Move along.
awnnerd (4 days ago)
Yes Dave, 5G is deadly, the government haven’t looked at this at all, but at least we have you. Thank god you’re here.
Kabuki Jo (4 days ago)
How do you know if 5G is safe or not? You gingers have no souls!!! j/k I agree, we do need more studies. Only trust sources with ZERO ties or funding from the 5G industry because those studies will ALWAYS say there's nothing to worry about! Just like the oil industry funded "Leaded Gasoline" studies that claimed the lead in gas was harmless.
MOGGY ANGRYgrrr (4 days ago)
Maybe, it will manipulate our brains further attempting to indoctrinate the population.
ATADEMO (4 days ago)
basic wave physics dictates the shorter the wavelength and the higher the frequency, the less physical energy the waves will contain.
GT Crain (4 days ago)
So don’t run and get sweaty. Got it.
m t (4 days ago)
The tin foil hats were on the right path all along!
Simboiss (4 days ago)
The first question I would ask is: what will happen if we *don't* have 5G ?
Origen17 (4 days ago)
You cannot trust any government agencies to tell the truth. You cannot trust any studies funded by industry to tell the truth. The only studies you can trust are those that do not stand to gain anything. Governments gain control and surveillance - industry gains monopoly powers and collude with governments (for control and surveillance). On top of that, we don't get a do-over here. We should not proceed without knowing the exact effects of 5G radiation.
first name last name (4 days ago)
Chill bro it aint nothen.shit we ain't dead so what the hell
Pinochet (4 days ago)
Dumb Jew University
prism (4 days ago)
The trouble with studying any ubiquitous tech is that there aren't good control groups. But this is the eternal gamble of ubiquitous tech: if it's universally useful, and no one finds a noticeable risk after using the tech, then all control groups disappear voluntarily by switching to the tech.
Dysfunc Survivor (4 days ago)
Terrestial radio transmission has been around for a long time, and at vastly larger power levels, although lower frequencies. Analog radio and TV required lots of power for reasonable S/N ratios at the recieving end. That said, I don't like the development of continent covering 4 and 5G electro smog.
Sirran Haal (4 days ago)
In the $25 million National Toxicology Program study, the rodents under study were exposed to radiofrequency radiation for 9 hours a day for 2 YEARS and even in utero. The experimental rodents also lived longer than the control mice, and there was no dose-response effect, ie more radiation did not correlate with more cancer. So don't extrapolate very far from this study. In addition, they conducted dozens of different analyses, so the chances are very good that in such a situation, you end up with some seemingly significant results due to random chance.
Ote Mork (4 days ago)
They say that smartphones turn people into zombies who don't pay attention to traffic.
Geo Net (4 days ago)
Speculating without evidence is not a scientific method but since we have no solid evidence, we can only do that. So my opinion is that they are providing us with 5G Tech (possibly) for quite a few reasons 1) To make us spend more and more money on the devices they sell to us 2) To be able to locate us through the radiation absorbed by our skin even without us having devices 3) To make us sick either to make pharmaceutical companies rich, or for depopulation purposes
2LegHumanist (4 days ago)
If there is no health risk, reasearchers will never be fully sure. You can only be fully sure if there is a measurable effect. The fact that so much research has been done for so many years and it is still inconclusive means it is safe to assume there is no ill-effect to be found.
Thor Vestergaard (4 days ago)
I know i would not be comfortable with one on my roof. Thank you for your hard work.
Davey Crocko (4 days ago)
I think some Fite fighters that have had towers built near their buildings have had illnesses
MrGrimm1337 (4 days ago)
(((University of Jerusalem)))
Michael Hales (5 days ago)
No is the very plain very simple answer and if you're having to use papers from the 70s to try to back up your own irrational fear then you are grasping at straws. You want to go back look again, firstly ignore anything that's in a bull shit journal, like Hindawi, Jama and or MSM (Medical Science Monitor). Secondly you only want to be looking at paper beyond 2000, and finally the only reason this BS started in the 1st place i because WHO changed their statement, "Does not cause cancer." To that cell phones may be “possibly carcinogenic to humans." The change from “no conclusive evidence” to “possibly carcinogenic” was not new research, the footnote accompanying the IARC press release clearly states — that a “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (2B) classification by IARC is based on “limited evidence of carcinogenicity” and that “chance, bias, or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.” I.e. were just not 100 %, we're about 95 but not 100. Why don't you have a look at any chemical MSDS and jump straight to the carcinogenic section, it will virtually always say: Possibly, maybe. And the majority of these chemicals that I'm thinking of right now such as DCM, TBDPS-Cl and Imidazole have a hell of a bigger chance of causing cancer than microwaves.
badazzmaro (5 days ago)
its not paranoia man,
Raios Ephi (5 days ago)
Didn't Mythbusters worked on this already? It was proven busted.
badazzmaro (5 days ago)
of course its dangerous, just the newest version of electromagnetic pollution. and the shitty part is there is no doubt worse technologies in development.
Street Skater 66 (5 days ago)
Thankfully most people are so obese that the danger of breaking into a sweat is never going to be a problem for them.
Martin Tirpák (5 days ago)
Measurments, tests on small animals and studies based on finding correlations are okay, but what I think researchers should do is to find what mechanism in particular is harming us. Now if they come up with lots of theories, test them and dont find any such mechanism, then we are pretty safe I guess. However, if they do find and prove there is a particular way non ionizing radiation is harming us, then we can say for sure it is harmful and we would know exactly why and how.
Because of all this confusion, they will move ahead with this, and only if a lot of people are OBVIOUSLY fucked by it will they change it, but not without a good fight like the tobacco industry did. Too much money involved for them to just acknowledge it and change. They will have to be forced to it, if at all... but with all these "inconclusive" shit, who will?? Or like with the tobacco industry, we'll need some internal memos or emails or something of equal value to "expose" them...
So in the end... we still don't know, which is what we already knew!! So for every one favorable article there are many that are against it... wow, but we already knew that, we were hoping that Computing Forever, a sort of an expert, would at least tell us where MOST of the good science is on this. What a video!!
T2020 (5 days ago)
The first question you should always ask when reading a study is "Who funded the study".

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.