Sorry...we're not going to burn
5-G won't 'nuke' Us.
........................................................................................................................................................................or cause cancer
- cancer incidence rates have actually fallen as smartphone usage increased.
I'd be happy to believe this, but must remain unconvinced. Here's some good reasons for that.
First, the site linked is https://www.androidauthority.com/5g-dangers - a representative of the cell phone industry that profits from continued use of cell phones, and will bankrupt if it is proven that grievous medical harm results from their use, and folks respond reasonably by not using them anymore.
That makes their content the very definition of shilling, and this post in particular, as that is demonstrably what it is intended to prevent.
Second, while cancer is a concern, it is not the only concern. Whether or not the studies they link are good studies or not, and whether they do show that cancer does not result from cell phone use, is debatable, and suspect, given my first point, but other studies do show links, and one would be advised to look at studies individually in order to have an understanding of the data generated and studied on the issue.
I note that there aren't competing industries that will profit from replacing cell phones, so there aren't competitors shilling for their replacement technology, and we can expect any and all shilling to be on behalf of the industry. Who would benefit from cell phones being proved medically harmful? No one I can think of. I can only see reporting on medical harm to be detrimental to the reporter, as at best they would incur the opposition of the IMMENSE industry they are calling out. What possible financial benefits of succeeding could result from such negative reports?
Other than a bit of notoriety - which should not be discounted, as it seems to drive a lot of shenanigans - I can see no other financial benefits to be gained from reporting on medical harm from cell phones and the communications industry, and I can see a great many ways to be penalized. Unless someone is prepared to become some kind of populist demagogue, and profit from lying constantly to a bamboozled public (a politician, in other words) there is zero profit potential from negative reporting.
While this doesn't lend any credence to such reports, it does indicate that such reports should only issue from sociopathic liars, or selfless tellers of truth. Their opposition has immense financial incentive, in addition to sociopathic potential.
Then there are other mechanisms for harm besides cancer, and other ways we are not aware of yet for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer. In fact, there are studies that claim to show non-ionizing radiation mutagenic effects, particularly from 5G. We are bathed in ~200M times the natural background radiation because of modern technology, and to assume or expect that this is just fine and requires little research into possible harmful effects is not reasonable. It's not guaranteed that there is harm, but only Pollyanna would dismiss reports of harm from independent researchers based on the denials of representatives of the vastly profitable industry dependent on that harm either not being exerted, or being ignored. At least carefully consider studies that do not support the industry in addition to the information they provide.
There are also numerous patents for effecting mental states in people using non-ionizing radiation, because our neurons react to EMF. The patents of Henricus Loos are a good indicator of the potential that hitting people in the head with microwaves may have. Do you own research and judge the potential for harm yourself.
I'm no luddite, but I always discount the pronouncements of certain shills, and examine their statements far more suspiciously, because I know from experience that profiteers will say anything to get your money.
Thanks!
I ran into the same trouble when examining smart meters (AMI not AMR). AMI meters use EMF, and AMR uses radio frequencies.
The FCC massaged the numbers ofc, to fit into the "allowable" range for exposure. They stated that these AMI meters only report, or send reading/usage data, once per hour. While it's true that they "report" once an hour, they actually "chirp", which is the same function as "reporting", almost constantly in effort to make sure the network doesn't have any problems communicating.
It's especially important to get a gov't body to regulate & sign-off on your system so that no criminal lawsuit can be filed against the offending company. Only class action would be allowable after approval.
Anyway, just a different example of how many shills are actually out there. We already know gov't agencies approve un-safe things all the time. It's the class-action classification these companies are looking for and will pay handsomely for it.