qwop

You can find a lot of material at the SafeEMR website of Joel Moskowitz. Look here, for a link to a 623-page document cataloging over 800 papers on EM effects:

https://www.saferemr.com/2019/07/recent-research.html

There has not been any studies (that I know of) specifically on 5G, because handsets and equipment has not been given out for any research. We are the experiment.

There has been some experiments on mmWaves in general, and computer modeling to try to predict these effects. But most of the effects you can infer from many other studies done already in the 2/3/4G frequency bands and with that technology. Look at the above link for those, you will find enough reading for a while.

VOALTRON

All you are going to find are bullshit articles filled with half-truths, and lies.

If you want to know what the health impacts are, then you need to understand the science behind the technology first- waves, frequencies, and transmission power.

Most anti-5G propaganda is centered around conflating the effects of high powered wave transmissions with the ultra low power transmissions used by the 5G network protocol. It's not even close to the same thing. It's like comparing the damage caused by spraying someone with a water hose, to getting sprayed with a hydraulic rock cutting tool.

qwop

The problem is the anti-5G group has been hijacked by a sort of unscientific mob. This does not change the underlying science that this microwave radiation has effects on all biology. But it makes people that can't see past the mob group, think it is just some fad tinfoil idea.

The science shows that there is not always a linear relationship between exposure and effect. If something disrupts biological functions at one power level, then increasing the power (withing reason), does not always equate to increased effects.

And if you only look at heating effects (your rock cutting tool example), you will never figure out the truth. The evidence for effects way below thermal threshold is well established at this point. This includes all types of electromagnetic radiation. From ELF (extremely low frequency) waves, all the way up to light frequencies.

If you don't think low-power EM waves have biological effects, then all you have to do is read the text you are reading right now. It is an electromagnetic wave hitting the cells in your retina, producing a biological effect which we happen to call vision. There is no rock cutting tool here. It is an extremely low power wave, and easily interacts with your biology.

It is absolutely ignorant, to think biological interaction cannot happen in any other frequency band. Just plain physics says, any polar molecule or charged particle will be moved by EM waves. You body is full of these. Your mitochondria transports single electrons and protons. When you put these in an electromagnetic field, simple physics requires that there will be a force acting upon these particles. That means there will be biological effects, there is no way around it. And this is what we see in experiments, when cellular metabolism or normal function becomes disrupted. You can wish it away all you want, but physics is physics, and there is no way around it.

Next becomes the problem of quantifying these effects, and setting safe exposure limits. This work has not been done by any official body for standards. Not by the FDA, not by the CDC, not by the FCC, and not by ICNIRP in EU. They all look at only thermal effects, never at physics-based biological interactions. And this is the reason for the science community issuing its warnings. We are flying completely blind, and 5G will usher a new era of wireless pollution upon us, and none of the standard setting institutions, have any clue of what the effects will be. It is a live experiment, and that is the issue.

VOALTRON

The science shows that there is not always a linear relationship between exposure and effect.

Effect is one thing, biological damage is another. And there is zero science that shows any sort of biological damage related directly to 5G frequencies, at their rated transmission power.

Again, a water hose spraying a body produces a biological effect. That isn't a damaging effect, and it certainly doesn't compare to being sprayed with a hydraulic cutting tool.

qwop

No, because 5G specifically, has not been tested. Would you board an airplane that was never tested? Your logic is based on "what I don't know, cannot hurt me".

We have abundant evidence on 2-4G already, and even some early epidemiological indications from the population that this is not good. This is akin to an airline known for poor manufacturing and crashes, but the new plane they build, never tested, is sure to be absolutely wonderful.

It has nothing to do with your analogy of pressure or power. The damage is already happening, at current levels.

VOALTRON

No, because 5G specifically, has not been tested.

When people call an entire electromagnetic spectrum band "5G" it's a clear indication that they don't know what the hell they're talking about, and just repeating anti-5G talking points that they read from some BS article.

5G is a communications protocol, not a stand alone technology. It includes technologies capable of meeting that protocols specifications.

In the case of the 5G communications protocol, specifications for using certain electromagnetic frequencies, at certain (ultra low power) power setting are specified.

Those particular frequencies are found in the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and according to the 5G protocol, those signals will be broadcast at roughly 3 watts of power, or less.

That's about as much radiation emission power as a night-light, and at a far lower electromagnetic frequency than the radiation of that night-light.

It's a nothing-burger. Those same frequencies have been in widespread use for decades, and hundreds, and even thousands of times the power levels of 5G transmissions. They're plenty tested.