There's one thing that nobody talks about concerning any perceived threat posed by electromagnetic radiation: physics. I hope everybody has enough education to know that something has to be able to affect something else before it can be said to have a negative effect. A thing can't negatively affect something else if it can't affect it at all, after all.

Now that we have that out of the way, somebody's going to have to explain how radio signals that don't even have enough energy to affect the atoms in your body are supposed to have a negative effect.

My tinfoil hat and condom keep me safe

If you say so bot.

https://archive.ph/jOTp0 :

None | We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe - Scientific American Blog Network

'Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. '

'Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. '

'The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. '

'New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. '

'The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. '

---

This has been an automated message.

Bonus!