The spectrum of frequencies used in 5G networks has been identified as possibly human carcinogenic by the IARC. To know the possible health dangers, it's helpful to understand the risk classifications provided by the IARC for exposure to RF-EMF. The spectrum for 5G networks is covered in this article, in addition to Dr. Curry's conflict of interests in the field. IARC classification of RF-EMF exposure as Class 2B (possibly carcinogenic for humans) RF-EMF exposure occurs from a variety of sources, including personal electronics as well as the environment (such as base stations for cell phones as well as broadcast antennas and medical applications), and occupational exposure. In the world over 5 billion people have cellphones, and the use is increasing rapidly. The use of cell phones is especially significant in middle and low-income countries with over seventy percent of adults own the phone. The use of cell phones is also increasing in countries with high incomes, with more than ninety percent possessing one. As per the IARC that exposure to RF-EMF may cause cancer in humans. However, current data do not permit us to completely assess the risks associated with RF exposure. We are only able to determine how long exposure can cause cancer, if it occurs. The spectrum of frequencies used in 5G networks There are many kinds of frequencies that can be used for 5G network. Mid-band spectrum, for instance is capable of high-speed speeds, but is less efficient in terms of gaining coverage. However high-band spectrum can support speeds of upwards of 10 Gbps. This means it is more efficient for 5G networks in areas with dense population and busy venues. The spectrum for 5G networks is contingent on country regulations in addition to international norms. For instance, some countries utilize 60-64GHz bands, while other countries don't. In the United States, the FCC has reserved 7 GHz of spectrum for license-free operations between 57-64GHz. 5G networks also will use higher frequencies than 4G networks. This is due to the fact that higher frequencies have more bandwidth than lower frequencies. https://www.proteckd.com/ , for example, have much more bandwidth than lower bands. Dr. Curry's conflict of interests with industry In August 2005 Dr. Curry contacted AI Life to inquire about an independent medical exam and medical record review. She also received the report of her primary physician who was Dr Goodkin, and a second report from Dr Glushakow. Both physicians did not agree with Dr. Goodkin concluded that Curry's knees were weak enough to carry out regular commuting tasks. On the 18th of January, 2006 AI Life denied Curry's appeal. On April 11 of 2006, she filed an elaborate appeal to this rejection. The appeal she filed referenced Dr. the Glushakow report and an ear smear from a brand new medical expert, Dr. Dabrowski. Curry's initial appeal was based on the fact she was a victim of AI Life. AI Life had rejected her medical records despite her claim that she was disabled. AI Life subsequently requested that her condition be examined by an independent doctor, the Dr. James M. Lee an orthopaedic surgeon board-certified. In his February 2, 2005 report Dr Goodkin found that Curry's disability did not preclude her from or sitting in a sedentary work position. In the report, it was also noted the fact that AI Life had not given Curry an ear modification that was reasonable in her situation.
https://www.proteckd.com/
