That’s not specific to questions about 5G. Most of what I read on Quora would fit that description.
Supposedly a few more far out papers have been published by the authors as well. Kinda makes you wonder what the motive is here. Seems a bit high effort to be simple trolling.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/millions-of-gps-...
[2] https://geog.umd.edu/sites/geog.umd.edu/files/pubs/Benish%20...
So at least some part of the visible "anti-5G crowd" is not actual people but just paid astroturfed propaganda, though I struggle to imagine who would be paying for that and why.
People who are afraid of "5G" don't know either, they cannot distinguish them. The main talking point is mmWave and more base stations with their alleged serious health issues that didn't previously exist. I'm not sure what's the justification here. To me, mmWave sounds "better" since it cannot penetrate the skin, unlike lower frequencies. And the additional power from more base stations will be balanced out by high attenuation.
Privacy and mass surveillance is another talking point. I saw one conspiracy theorist described it as a major threat from 5G and how the government is going to use 5G to "enslave the population". It's a legitimate concern, but the existing cellular network, the Internet, and facial recognition already enabled it. Ubiquitous connectivity and more base stations will enable additional tracking, but it isn't 5G that makes a fundamental difference here.
People have been complaining about wireless technologies since Marconi.
That said, yes, it’s got higher frequencies, beam forming, and orders of magnitude higher density of cells.
Just found a paper: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/The%20human%20ski...
> The results obtained from the simulation work were verified in series of in vivo experiments conducted on a number of subjects in the W-band (75–110 GHz). It was shown that the reflection coefficient of their skin strongly depends on the physiological stress of the subject (Feldman et al., 2009, 2008). In the experiments, the palm was held steady by a stand that was placed at fixed distance from the horn antenna connected to the input of the Vector Network Analyzer (VNA). The measurements were carried out using 13 subjects, both male and female, all were in the age group 20–30 and had given their informed consent.
Wow, you can use a VNA to measure that?
Honestly, the top responses almost read like neural network generated proto-english [1] Some range from level headed [2] to pseudo-scientific babble [3].
[3] is interesting to dissect. It seems to be based on a misinterpretation of how electron spin spectroscopy works along with a healthy dose of hocus-pocus involving "EMF meters".
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-afraid-of-5g
[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-people-are-scared-of-5G...
[3] https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-scared-of-5G-and-mak...
Edit: I've been trying to find a more balanced look at the issue, I liked this one by Larry Desjardin on EDN: https://www.edn.com/does-5g-pose-health-risks-part-2/
The TLDR is that recent IEEE research indicates that the traditional model of sub-THz radiation absorption (1-2mm deep at most in human skin) may not be the whole picture. Whether this indicates harm to humans is still unknown.