If 5G is dangerous, then non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation in general is more dangerous than we thought. I don't think this is impossible, but so far the evidence doesn't seem strong.

The evidence isn't strong. That said 5G does expose you to more base station radiation than ever before, with cells of up to 120W and a cell every neighborhood block. Compare to 4G with cells of 20W and a cell every city block or two.

So to me it's always seemed rational to at least revisit the question and reaffirm it's still fine.

We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine, or once believed to be harmful! Trans fats, asbestos, lead, sun, saturated fats, sugar, exercise, etc etc.

Though, the antenna in your phone exposes you to more radiation than the base station, so that's probably the more important question. Perhaps with higher base station density, the mobile devices actually reduce output.

Typically the debate centers around "non-ionizing radiation is safe" and strictly speaking that's probably 100% true.

>We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine

That is my concern. Specifically that the "non-ionizing radiation" is a red-herring. Its possible that EMF exposure effects cells in another way that we've yet to realize. As a poor analogy: Arguing that being exposed to constant visible light on the basis that "Light is non-ionizing" misses the fact that constant visible light disrupts the circadian rhythm which has a host of other ill-effects.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we ban something on a fear, but given the enormous potential cost if we get it wrong, it should be thoroughly studied.

True, I think it's important for people to distinguish that. "The waves can't ionize, so you shouldn't be worried" is a counter-argument I often see, and it really isn't a good one. The entire point is to try to identify what other potential harm electromagnetic radiation could cause beyond ionization.

It definitely needs to be thoroughly studied. But to my understanding, the past decades of study into it haven't revealed any harmful effects so far, at the energy levels that humans are generally exposed to. I do think it should continue to be studied in different ways, but given the current knowledge, I don't think people should feel very concerned about it.

The big difference between visible light and 5G in this case is humans are known to be capable of sensing visible light, while no person has ever demonstrated the ability to sense radio waves like 5G signals. Of course we can't sense gamma radiation either, but in the case of ionizing radiation we at least have solid evidence humans can be harmed by it. But for radio waves? There's nothing, no hint of how any harm might occur, short of being put in a microwave oven and receiving thermal burns.

> But for radio waves? There's nothing, no hint of how any harm might occur, short of being put in a microwave oven and receiving thermal burns.

To preface: I don't think there's any evidence at this time that standard levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are harmful to humans.

But it's not inconceivable that there could be some harm caused which we're not aware of yet and which is eventually discovered in the future. The body and brain are extremely complex and not fully understood, etc. Molecular biology is sensitive. It's not implausible that there could hypothetically be certain chemical reactions or cell processes which are subtly disrupted by certain frequency bands at certain amplitudes.

I personally don't think there will be such a finding, but people still need to keep an open mind, I think.

I operated a 1KW 100 MHz transmitter in my 'bad boy' days, my children all seem to have the right number of heads. And that thing would fry pigeons if I forgot to give the rotor a shake before switching on the end stage. Less than 5 meters from me most of the time.

I think it's very likely that such EMF isn't harmful and the current body of evidence is correct, but "I was exposed and I seem fine" is always an argument people use for things like this. For one, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean anything about others' specific situations (exposure, direction/angle, their genetics, etc.), but more importantly, it's very possible that one may not ever actually detect certain subtle harmful long-term changes.

Someone exposed to low levels of lead poisoning over many years may not notice anything's happening to them. If after 10 years their memory isn't quite what it used to be, yet it's still mostly fine, they'll likely just chalk it up to aging.

Yes, it is obviously anecdata. N=1 and all that. But trust me, 1KW is nothing to sneeze at, the fluorescent tubes in the building I was in would light up spontaneously, as would those as far as I could see wherever the antenna would point. A couple of blocks at least. So if there was a direct effect and not just some very low statistical one you would expect to see a case like that register. This is not unlike smoking where chugging 4 packs per day tends to have consequences. And then of course, everybody has that great-uncle who did smoke 4 packs per day and still runs the half marathon at 85. Maybe I'm that guy, but I think that the whole EM->cell or DNA interaction is a load of bunk until you get into extreme power at very short range.

A KW of HF when you touch it or less than that at GHz+ ranges and you will do real damage to tissue, I have the scar to prove that one.

The induced power falls off very rapidly with distance, especially for omni-directional radiators. The 120' antennae that are common on cell phone installations have relatively low efficiency and 100W or so of radiated power per antenna, maybe 105W at the foot of the mast but unless there is some kind of giant impedance mismatch and if there is then you'll just fry an end stage.

>Maybe I'm that guy, but I think that the whole EM->cell or DNA interaction is a load of bunk until you get into extreme power at very short range.

I think so, too, and this is what the science currently appears to show. But my point is really much more of a general one: there are always unknown unknowns out there. It's not totally implausible that it could one day be discovered that there's some strange mechanism of action that we had no idea was present, like some sort of subtle cell machinery disruption for a specific kind of cell from certain frequencies and amplitudes which otherwise wouldn't cause any damage through sheer aggregate photon exposure, or something like that.

To reiterate, I think that that's unlikely. But I'm saying just as a general principle, it's hard to assess the potential harm of something purely based on your own subjective feeling about it, because if it actually is affecting you, you often really may not have any way of being cognizant of that fact. It's actually more likely that that would be the case the more likely that it's believed to be safe, because dramatic effects would increase the odds of the effect showing up in studies. There's a huge buffer between where you may still feel totally fine and functional over years and where you start to actually notice some harmful effects. Many people with low-level chronic exposure to some harmful thing may remain in that buffer zone forever.

For example, the water I drink has fluoride in it, and from everything I've read I don't believe the low levels that are in the water have a negative impact on health. But if somehow the scientific consensus eventually turns out to be wrong and there actually were some subtle impact to cognition that accrued over decades, would I be aware of this just by analyzing my own behavior and functionality over the years? Probably not. I don't think fluoridated water is harmful, but I also acknowledge it's quite possible I wouldn't be able to know if it's harmful or not just by introspection alone.

There were plenty of mechanics practically snorting asbestos (from brake rotors) who never got mesothelioma.

I'm not pushing EM->DNA or really any particular theory. But I try to remain aware of all the health blunders we've made in the past hundred years.

beamforming [0] https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10542-der_pfad_von_4g_zu_5g

Go through the cited papers / patents [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106643287A/en [2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US3951134A/en

That 4G cell of 20W at a couple of meters and even that 120W 5G cell is still absolutely nothing compared to the cell phone you hold against your head.

Challenge of revisting these questions is there can't be someone getting involved who's bet all their chips on the answer beforehand

Dangerous toward humans, or toward the environment in general? I worry we as a species haven't fully thought about the effect we are having on other species, like killing bees and deafening marine life.

Read from page 6 to 7 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/6461...

Well, in 2016 Russia thought they would benefit from promoting racial tensions in the US though e.g. bogus Blue Lives Matter online groups. It was a major focus of their election interference campaign (source: Senate Intelligence Report). Turning neighbors against each other over bogus health concerns feels like it's in the same ballpark.

Destabilization by mutual mistrust

Casting the narrative into an easier to manipulate one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYkEqDp760

Imagine a world where one county underfunds infrastructure because of 5G health fears, but another country does not. Wouldn’t the county that implemented the infrastructure have a competitive advantage?

There are two angles of potential for who benefits.

1) Misdirection. Someone trying to muddy the waters of blame related to SARS-CoV-2. In that case, almost anything other than the truth will be useful. Chaos of information is ideal if that's your goal. Try to shatter the consensus. Unleash, entice, the people prone to extremes on conspiracy theories, let them do the work of spraying non-sense everywhere. Moderately effective and at very little cost, all they require is a gentle nudge at a time like this.

2) Degrade competitors when it comes to their deployment of technology (5G in this case). A small erosion is a large potential benefit over time. Once you have an advantage, keep pressing it forward.

> Having said all that, who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort?

In attempt to answer this question honestly, and I doubt any of these industries are actively pushing anti-5G propaganda, but cable companies, established cellular/wireless companies, and even the WiFi industry will benefit from an anti-5G message. They will all be affected if 5G lives up to it's promises.

This is a nice patent application https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106643287A/en but I really, really encourage you to read the cited papers from the 70's onwards(which is how I found that PA)

I like that you're open to holding ambiguity around this.

There are few things we should proclaim with certainty, and "5g is 100% biologically harmless" doesn't seem to be one of them, yet.

>who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort?

Some:

Scientist who've staked their reputation against 5g, disadvantaged telecom co's, conspiracy theorists/media who prey on fear, gov't who don't like the social direction connectivity is taking us (populus' can 'wake up' increasingly quickly).