Project much? Go fuck yourself, Satan-worshipping loser.

A thousand times this.

Yes. I want to get wired internet throughout my house, but were so close to our neighbors that the wiring guy said it won't make any difference. I would move if I could find an area without wifi.

Actually it's really hard. At the speeds we work at now, millimeter-length differences in conductor runs make a huge difference (you'll usually only notice this for traces on high clock speed circuit boards). We can't really do parallel buses any more because of that length difference problem (IDE/PATA is now SATA). Add to those issues that copper in cables picks up RF energy and the signals get lost in it (look at why we use UTP for Ethernet). There is a (relatively) huge latency imposed by going from copper to optical and back (see why twinax patches are better than running fiber within racks in your datacenter).

You can't get faster then fiber lines

Hold up... I'm not a fan of 5g, but, it's much harder to lay down fiber line for faster physical line networking then it is for wireless.

Hence look at Africa, no infrastructure for wired networking, only wireless (although there it's also about giving them less to steal... lol)

You know what it's for? The digital Panopticon.

Wait until the "connected, self-driving" vehicle fleet is widespread. Every one of those transport pods will be scanning not only visually, but with radar and LIDAR at a range of hundreds of feet. And of course terabytes of information will be flowing along those 'connections' for "traffic de-confliction", and other 'safety purposes'.

The fluffy, benign 'justification' is already being prepared: "Autonomous Car Tips off rescuers to lost child location!" Then it's just a short step to 'officer-safety' and "anti-terror".

Because tech doesn't stop improving just because you don't understand it. Nobody needs anything faster than [blank] has never turned out to be sustainable. Nobody needs faster than an 8086, 2600 baud, 100MB Hard drive, etc.

Yes they are

Because it will allow (((them))) (whomever you think (((them))) is) to control Power (electricity). Global Power Control is their ultimate goal.

What do you mean?

Non-ionizing radiation is not required for harm. Electromagnetic fields disrupt biological systems through many different mechanisms.

They disrupt cellular metabolism on a molecular level. One of the consequences is free radical damage with several downstream effects. Another is disruption of the cellular membrane, effects on the mitochondrial electron transport chain, and disruption of neurological glucose metabolism, also with downstream consequences.

"Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/

"Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

1670 peer-reviewed papers on electromagnetic effects on biology:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view

The ionizing requirement is a completely fabricated myth spread by the cellular industry. Time to educate yourself and stop spreading misinformation.

Exposure to regular old radio frequencies can literally burn you if the power is high enough. It's a common enough hazard that there's a question about it on the FCC test to become ham radio certified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn

Radiation burns can also occur with high power radio transmitters at any frequency where the body absorbs radio frequency energy and converts it to heat.[1] The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers 50 watts to be the lowest power above which radio stations must evaluate emission safety. Frequencies considered especially dangerous occur where the human body can become resonant, at 35 MHz, 70 MHz, 80-100 MHz, 400 MHz, and 1 GHz.

Non-ionizing radiation can be dangerous.

You do realize that 5g waves have a much higher frequency and thus more energy than wavelengths, right? Is a microwave dangerous??

It's all about the frequency of the waves used and how many waves are focused on a small area.

Older teach is less dangerous because it isn't such high energy focused on a small area

I'm going to pretend I'm the balanced person here. Non-ionizing radiation is harmful in large quantities. Don't believe that.. put your hand in the microwave.

I know there has been some reports of some police radios causing breast cancer because that's a broadcast strength signal, with encryption, and redundancy, sitting basically right on the breast.

So the issue is that microwave can cause mild tissue damage, which then heals, but some parts of the body are really not built for healing burns. Take cataracts and radar operators for example. That's damage from non ionizing radiation that unlike most of the body doesn't heal.

Now does 5g cross that threshold? I'm not holding my breath but I'm also not going to throw away the claims entirely. It is theoretically possible for something to cross a threshold, but it's also practical that people will complain about it on the internet even if it doesn't.