I am discontinuing now my opening of this thread for all peeps...
It's fascinating to me that people have been claiming health damage since the introduction of AM radio. Every time a new technology rolls out, the fear rises up again so my bias is to be very sceptical for that reason alone. Still, I'm willing to consider that more energetic radiation could cause adverse effects. But is it more energetic? None of the anti-5G stuff I've seen provides any clear explanation to me of why it could be more of a problem, not that I've tried to wade through the internet stuff.
The thing is, we have a very good understanding of radiation safety. The whole science field of health physics has been going since they started building nuclear weapons in the 1940s. And the nuke people had plenty of money and plenty of reason to research radiation risk. In a nutshell, there are basically two kinds of radiation, ionizing radiation that has a high enough energy to ionize whatever atom it hits, and non-ionizing radiation that does not. It is the ionization that can damage cells and lead to cancer. I saw an eye-opening talk by one of the early leaders in health physics who said, "Radiation is very good at killing cells but very poor at mutating them. That's why radiation therapy works for cancer."
I'm not going to say that there is no harm from 5G because it's not my area of expertise, but we have a huge foundation of research to decide if there is any likelihood of it causing cancer. Bottom line, if you can't show a mechanism that explains how it would cause cancer, you have diddly-squat.
hear, hear
A 5g tower/antenna was just installed across the street from our home - literally 100' from our home. I'm not concerned in the least.
I am discontinuing now my opening of this thread for all peeps...
It's fascinating to me that people have been claiming health damage since the introduction of AM radio. Every time a new technology rolls out, the fear rises up again so my bias is to be very sceptical for that reason alone. Still, I'm willing to consider that more energetic radiation could cause adverse effects. But is it more energetic? None of the anti-5G stuff I've seen provides any clear explanation to me of why it could be more of a problem, not that I've tried to wade through the internet stuff.
The thing is, we have a very good understanding of radiation safety. The whole science field of health physics has been going since they started building nuclear weapons in the 1940s. And the nuke people had plenty of money and plenty of reason to research radiation risk. In a nutshell, there are basically two kinds of radiation, ionizing radiation that has a high enough energy to ionize whatever atom it hits, and non-ionizing radiation that does not. It is the ionization that can damage cells and lead to cancer. I saw an eye-opening talk by one of the early leaders in health physics who said, "Radiation is very good at killing cells but very poor at mutating them. That's why radiation therapy works for cancer."
I'm not going to say that there is no harm from 5G because it's not my area of expertise, but we have a huge foundation of research to decide if there is any likelihood of it causing cancer. Bottom line, if you can't show a mechanism that explains how it would cause cancer, you have diddly-squat.
