[rndphs]

But the only electric current on the molecular level is coherent current...? Chemical reactions are not macroscale phenomena, and so it shouldn't really matter if the energy comes from a random distribution or not. Also please don't insinuate that I'm "profoundly ignorant", that certainly isn't relevant to the discussion.

[ncmncm]

Profound ignorance is insistence of certainty in the entire absence of knowledge of a subject.

Microwaves absorbed in tissue induce electrical currents carried by ions in solution. Just about everything that happens in your body involves ions moving in solution, one way or another. Details matter.

[rndphs]

But the movement of ions in solution is almost completely dominated by thermal motion. Your signal doesn't matter if the signal to noise ratio is essentially zero.

[ncmncm]

In other words, life is impossible?

That will be surprising to those of us who, you know, exist.

[rndphs]

No, the molecular machinery of cells uses energy level differences that are far above the thermal energy level at body temperature, which allows them to actually make changes to things irreversibly. Enzymes are a great example of this.

Try to use microwaves to move ions from one side of a container of salt solution to the other and then get back to me on the ability of microwaves to control ion movement. Hint: you basically can't without obscene levels of radiation. The thermal "pressure" due to the diffusion of ions is enormous.

For a sense of scale, the thermal velocity of water molecules at room temperature is about 500m/s. The drift velocity(average movement of charge carriers, i.e. coherent current) of typical electric currents is on the order of 1mm/s.

[ncmncm]

For microwaves to produce currents that could plausibly have an effect, there would need to be rectification and resonance, so that current could ratchet up. Unfortunately, both are known to occur in living tissue, as may be observed in people whose dental fillings enable them to pick up AM radio broadcasts.

On top of rectification and resonance, the signal would need to be carried in a place where its current has a persistent effect, and the nature of the signal itself, the modulation, would need to be such as to drive some cellular-scale electrochemical process. It is not possible to predict what that would be for the signal in question, if indeed there are any.

We appear to have got lucky with previous generations, but that tells us nothing about the next.

[ncmncm]

So, getting quantitative, suppose you have a modulation that gives you, at the membrane, a nanoamp average current, rectified, with a modulation resonant with the nanostructure, so each cycle pumps ions in just one direction. A nanoamp of +1 ions is 6 billion of them moving per second.

Now, 6B ions is hardly any, in the grand scheme of things, but they are in a very small space, and another 6B are moving in the next channel over. The only places we know of (well, that I know of) where these nanoamp currents are important is in organizing healing, and in embryo development. Old people have a hard enough time mustering healing activity without anything disrupting the process. I don't know what other processes might involve such currents.

Again, we don't know whether 5G modulation will affect healing in old people, but it is certainly physically possible that it can. It will be very hard to measure, but that doesn't mean the physiological effect must be small.

If there is an effect, will we notice? Is anybody monitoring healing rates in old people, at the population level, today? How do you even measure that?