[cogman10]

> So, yeah, how much do we know for a fact?

Because it is transmitted at the same frequency as previous cell phone technologies. There are literally decades worth of studies around the effects of nonionizing radiation.

The only thing 5G changes is the transmission protocol.

It's fine to be a skeptic, but this is fear mongering. We don't need a 20 year long study to prove something we've known to be safe for 20 years because some crackpots claim it makes them nauseous or causes cancer. If you are going to be skeptical, why aren't you skeptical of the unverified negative claims?

Where's my proof? Google "non-ionizing radiation health". Would find a bunch of articles from reputable sources that all land on the same conclusion. It's safe.

Here's the CDC article on it. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizing_radiation.htm...

[hnhg]

I haven't dived deep into this topic, and this isn't a challenge to what you're saying, but what are your thoughts on the points here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...

TBH, unless you work directly in an area like this and stay up to date, it's a question of faith in experts either way. It basically becomes an appeal to authority, and as you can see, if you have multiple putative authorities, it becomes difficult to select.

[cogman10]

That the guy is, frankly, fringe.

This isn't the first anti-RF study he's published and I doubt it will be the last.

Looking further into his claims, he's said everything from "Alzheimer's is caused by WiFi" to "previous non ionizing studies were all flawed because that used the wrong test animal".

I expect when 6G rolls out he'll publish exactly the same study with an equally scary title.

I know, I'm committing an ad hominem fallacy. But at the end of the day I'm not buying his article see the rest of the claims. It is good enough for me that consensuses of much larger studies over longer periods are pretty much all against his study.

[hnhg]

Pubmed is littered with similar authors in peer-reviewed journals. He's not the only one.

This shows the problem right now. If you're not an expert, you don't know what you don't know, and have to yield to some kind of authority. Noise is greater than it has ever been, and trust is low. This will get worse before it gets better....

[newcrobuzon]

> Because it is transmitted at the same frequency as previous cell phone technologies.

AFAIK it is not, 5G also deploys >24GHz (up to 300GHz).

Happy to be proven wrong, but so far - from my POV - this has been the biggest hole in the theory that we do not need to test 5G because we already know it is safe...