Wireless carriers will claim that the tech is safe. Others say no. TheFCC promulgated rules around what limits local municipalities are allowed to enact - seeming accepting at face value that there aren’t detrimental health impacts.
Are there any documented negative health impacts of widespread 5G technology deployments?
No.
Whenever this type of topic comes up, i see comments that state “because it’s non-ionizing radiation, there can’t be any DNA impact thus no cancer danger.”
But, there have been papers recently showing a biological impact through reactive oxygen species.
I think the answer is that the science is not settled on the full impact of low energy rf radiation on biological systems.
No.
Quite Correct.
It is difficult to test the effects of widespread 5G technology until it becomes widespread. There are certainly some studies that indicate that this type of radiation may have harmful effects.
I’m sure they contribute to a vague set of symptoms that seemingly elude scientists because that can only be cured by a completely different therapy every 8 to 10 months. The biggest problem in treatment is one of the most prevalent symptoms, in that as soon as any symptoms return, the old therapies are forgotten about and a completely new one has to be found
Cite?
None that aren’t exercises in P-hacking.
I see nothing other than “weasel words” in both those quotes.
The second one was written by a practicing plastic surgeon who “has authored many policy resolutions related to reducing environmental toxins at the California Medical Association House of Delegates.”
I’m still not sure why the California Medical Association House of Delegates has so many toxins
This is GQ, not IMHO. No one cares about your opinion.
Then, you’d better post some facts, and not someone else’s opinion…
Because they don’t colon cleanse every two weeks?
At least they are not stuck in their ways, like the Delegates Of Georgia Medical Association.
Fact 1: The studies showing perceived health effects of perceived exposure to high frequency EM radiation show highly significant results.
Fact 2: There are no changes in population health over the last four decades with increasing radiation that can plausibly be linked to that radiation.
Fact 3: The higher the frequencies involved, the closer we get to the area where The Sun is the most significant source, and people have to start dragging in the modulation of the signal.
Fact 4: To argue scientific evidence for radio frequency EM being a danger one has to cherry pick studies and/or claim specific elements of current technology haven’t been studied sufficiently.
The existence of facts 1-3 should make one weary of those engaging in the exercises described in fact 4. Yes there are studies showing all sort of effects of lab setups exposing mice or cells in vitro to radio frequency EM. But there is all sorts of reasons to believe these are research artifacts and/or do not represent a real world health hazard.
Exactly correct.
Except the fact one. Which isn’t true at all. The studies cited up thread are either P-hacking or opinion pieces.
Even at the worst case, supposing there are provable impacts low levels of from non-ionizing RF… wouldn’t it still be several orders of magnitude less harmful than, say, obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, skin cancer, anti-vax, flying in airplanes, living near power plants, spending time in traffic, eating too much red meat… if public health is the concern, what good is going after the fringes?
If, say, 5G can help smarter cars network and better avoid each other, prevented traffic deaths alone would probably dramatically outweigh any miniscule impact from a little bit more wireless. Or if it can improve urban air quality through smarter grids. Etc.
What the hell is P-hacking?