I recommend Frank Tufano and the Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs.
Science isn’t always right. They’ve had to back pedal quite a bit. And scientists have been known to be bought out. Even the cell companies themselves put warning labels on their products, so it’s not totally harmless.
Big thing about 5g that’s concerning (outside of the issues with aviation and weather instrumentation (I think I posted about that here)) is that it increases the obsolescence of consumer computational equipment. 5g was dramatic in terms of speed, which makes many people feel like their equipment is antiquate so they upgrade.
@marc67 I’m generally not a person who panics about technology. However, I’m interested to know WHY exactly is the airline industry so concerned about 5G that they are threatening to cancel flights. And as a result, the network companies are succumbing to the pressure by postponing the roll-outs.
@anon59201358 THIS I can agree with. I know people get attached to their devices & if it’s not broken & still functioning fine, why spend money to get something new. So I get that part of the push-back.
Short answer: Yes.
Good: way faster net then 4G
Bad: If not used for Torrenting, it will be used for “Internet of things” or better to say smart homes and appliances connected to you, which makes us even dumber and laiser.
It also needs DENSER Network of antennas that do radiate more (device too) so coverage of 5G is limited to small areas in capitals, unlike well spread 4G
4K fast view and download? I currently see no major usages, as 4G is quite fast and usable.
Overall: future, but now too early, expensive phones, low coverage, low usability
If METHODOLOGY and SAMPLE is proper, and yes, its not same private company funding the research, science cant be wrong
When referring to “5G and health”, beyond concerns about radiation sensitivity and other impacts:
Unregulated implementation of highly efficient technology systematically leads to rebound effects and, thus, despite the obtained efficiency gains, net increases in energy (and other) consumption. In 2022, it has now been well documented that this extractive expansion has become incompatible with planetary boundaries (for safe human existence) and technology (and more specifically IT) is on an unsustainable trajectory.
Only as one example: anthropogenic climate change has become the most important threat to human health of our era (Lancet Countdown) and information technology including mobile devices is a growing green house gas emitter (in catastrophic but imperceptible proportions).
And, currently through the attention economy and its impact, partly mediated by smartphones, on human creativity and imagination, we remain trapped by a (“Thatcherist”) illusion that there is “no alternative”… which is not only a crude reduction of human capacities, but, simply, false.
Mudita can potentially be one helpful element to find our way out of the perceived (economic and technological) “growth” imperative, by freeing up space for the creation of new (and positively disruptive) perspectives, personal engagement and other potentially worthwhile manifestations of human agency…
Sorry if this comment appears a bit abstract at first, but I thought it might be worthwhile and of some relevance here…
@flix-b_4140 Thanks for your input. Our main aim is to create human-friendly, mindful technology. Technology which provides benefits and minimizes risks.
Personally, I think, more technology is not always better.
More connection is not always better either. It just seems we can’t get away from it.