> The reason that this is absurd is that there's this popular notion that 5G is fundamentally new technology. The reality is that it is literally just radio
This is just plain incorrect or you are being intellectually dishonest.
For example one of the obvious difference in 5G is the radio frequency, which is much higher. Different frequencies have (or likely might have) differnet properties, different absorbtion rates by the skin, different energy profiles, different resonant factors in the body. For example lower frequencies might go through the body, while other frequencies get stopped by it and energy absorbed by the body.
Just because they both use radio waves, does not mean they are the same. The gamma rays are also basically radio waves, if we would be using your logic you would say that gamma rays should be considered safe because we know 2G is safe?
And I am not saying that 5G uses gamma rays, it's obviously not the case. I am saying that different frequencies do actually differ in their effect on the body and the environment, and you can't just group them together because it's more convenient.
If you want to use science and critical thinking for real, you can't just assume that all frequencies behave the same, that's false due to basic physics.
The article talks about how higher frequencies are safer for the brain because they might get stopped by the skin and not penetrate the body as much. Sure that might be the case, but do we really want those frequencies hitting our skin all the time? What effects does it have on the skin then? Did they actually asked how many people would want this? No they did not, they just started rolling out this technology without much conversation. This is what people are upset about. And when they start asking legitimate scientific questions - if they are met with the condescending attitude that "we are scientists, you don't understand physics get out of here" - like you have in your post - and then you proceed to claim things that are actually not fully 100% valid physics-wise (because different frequencies are different, they're not "just radio") - then that is not a good argument.
Bottomline is, higher 5G frequencies might be safe or not, and there are different legitimate scientific ways of showing that. But saying that it is safe just because "it's basically radio, like 2G" - is really not one of them.
>The gamma rays are also basically radio waves, if we would be using your logic you would say that gamma rays should be considered safe because we know 2G is safe?
parent never said anything of the sort.
Are you confusing the entire electromagnetic spectrum with radiowaves? [0]
No one in this thread has yet made the assertion that all energy is the same, merely that everything within the radio spectrum has similar effects towards humans.
Parent to your comment even drove a comparison between microwave and radio, commenting on the affect of microwave towards people.
>Bottomline is, higher 5G frequencies might be safe or not, and there are different legitimate scientific ways of showing that. But saying that it is safe just because "it's basically radio, like 2G" - is really not one of them.
That's your bottom line, but you also seem to be under the understanding that this energy that hits our skin is at all times absorbed, which isn't the case in physical reality. It's mostly reflected -- the fact that the human body stops it means little with regards to it's effect on said body, or any such accumulation of effect.
As for the rat study -- I am personally going to wait for independent replicatability in human models, or something more similar to humans, before I turn to FUD.
Hell, it'd be nice to even see replicatability of the same experiment across other labs..
> That's your bottom line, but you also seem to be under the understanding that this energy that hits our skin is at all times absorbed, which isn't the case in physical reality. It's mostly reflected -- the fact that the human body stops it means little with regards to it's effect on said body, or any such accumulation of effect.
I certainly hope you are correct in this (in all possible practical situations and applications), and the ultimate things is of course, as you write, to
> wait for independent replicatability in human models, or something more similar to humans, before I turn to FUD.
But why outright disregard any doubt or questions or people that want to understand more before we implement some new somewhat untested technology? Calling them "absurd", "idiot", "frothing at the mouth", "blithely unaware of the last century of human progress", etc. - just doesn't seem helping the progress, and outright counterproductive. It's emotional reaction, a negative and attacking at that. Science has no place for emotions. It shouldn't be ok to be emotional about these things, just because you assume you are right. The other people assume exactly that about their own thoughts, and if you get emotional about it, you're just as counterproductive as the worst ones on the other side of the intellectual divide. It doesn't lead to new progress.
You are absolutely right that we should be cautious, but caution has already been taken by the scientific community. The public is not aware of the work is all, and understandably there is frustration when the only reason to hesistate is because not all the public have informed themselves.
This is just plain incorrect or you are being intellectually dishonest.
For example one of the obvious difference in 5G is the radio frequency, which is much higher. Different frequencies have (or likely might have) differnet properties, different absorbtion rates by the skin, different energy profiles, different resonant factors in the body. For example lower frequencies might go through the body, while other frequencies get stopped by it and energy absorbed by the body.
Just because they both use radio waves, does not mean they are the same. The gamma rays are also basically radio waves, if we would be using your logic you would say that gamma rays should be considered safe because we know 2G is safe?
And I am not saying that 5G uses gamma rays, it's obviously not the case. I am saying that different frequencies do actually differ in their effect on the body and the environment, and you can't just group them together because it's more convenient.
If you want to use science and critical thinking for real, you can't just assume that all frequencies behave the same, that's false due to basic physics.
The article talks about how higher frequencies are safer for the brain because they might get stopped by the skin and not penetrate the body as much. Sure that might be the case, but do we really want those frequencies hitting our skin all the time? What effects does it have on the skin then? Did they actually asked how many people would want this? No they did not, they just started rolling out this technology without much conversation. This is what people are upset about. And when they start asking legitimate scientific questions - if they are met with the condescending attitude that "we are scientists, you don't understand physics get out of here" - like you have in your post - and then you proceed to claim things that are actually not fully 100% valid physics-wise (because different frequencies are different, they're not "just radio") - then that is not a good argument.
Bottomline is, higher 5G frequencies might be safe or not, and there are different legitimate scientific ways of showing that. But saying that it is safe just because "it's basically radio, like 2G" - is really not one of them.