Current Events > Why 5G? Why was 4G okay but 5G isn't?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also they should just make some innocuous change and call it something else.

i dont understand your issue.

5g isnt good for what?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw0A9FUTEKE

---

Cause one 5G tower gave the world a pandemic

---

Uhh is this not clear? 5 is more than 4, so obviously there's more radiation.

---

the actual problem is that the frequencies are similar to the ones used for weather forecasts, and could interfere with predictive capabilities

---

because China bad

6g when

---

5g is ok, except companies want to use Chinese towers which and about 30% cheaper than other companies. Its been proven that china used these to spy on governments before.

We should skip 5g and go to 6g. That way there won't be any conspiracies

---

I thought the conspiracy started because 5G requires a lot more infrastructure everywhere than 4G did, so having a ton of cell towers popping up everywhere built by chinese companies was good fodder for conspiracies.

I might be wrong though.

---

Too many microwaves not enough popcorn

---

To get higher bandwidth you need higher frequencies, and at some point they do eventually go from safe to dangerous, which is why we have shields on microwave doors. The question is just what is that range. A lot of the concerns stem from early studies on the impact of those higher frequency wavelength on people that showed potential for harm. The issue is that I don't think there's been a study yet that has a sufficiently large number tested to be considered verifiably true.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/

The introduction of the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication will increase the number of high-frequency-powered base stations and other devices. The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact. This review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations. Each study was characterized for: study type (in vivo, in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density), results, and certain quality criteria. Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.

---