Petition to stop 5G trials in the Southwest UK

[colonel_mortis]

@mhammonde Your topic has been moved to General Discussion because it doesn't meet the Tech News posting guidelines. If you update it to comply, it can be moved back.

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

41 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

EDIT: General note for the thread. A lot of people are confusing 5G (the cellular data standard that is the successor to LTE) and 5 GHz band frequency.

 

While I understand the statement... with very few exceptions, the general advantages that apply for the 5GHz relative to 2.4GHz also apply for the 5G implementations (as the hyper majority are looking at higher frequency bands).

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

While I understand the statement... with very few exceptions, the general advantages that apply for the 5GHz relative to 2.4GHz also apply for the 5G implementations (as the hyper majority are looking at higher frequency bands).

Kind of - but when they're talking the higher frequency bands, they're talking about the 28 GHz+ bands, not 5 GHz. I'm just pointing out that people are using 5 GHz and 5G interchangeably. This is incorrect, unless you're specifically referring to a carrier that will be using 5 GHz.

In fact, I can only find one single band (out of about... 40?) near the 5 GHz frequency:

Band n79 ("4.7 GHz", but actually between 4.4 GHz and 5 GHz)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

 

Furthermore, I can't find a single carrier/country that is actually even intending on using the n79 Band:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_5G_NR_networks

 

In fact, it looks like the vast majority of carriers are choosing to use the n78 Band ("3.5 GHz" - 3.3 GHz to 3.8 GHz).

 

So, I reiterate, people are confusing 5 GHz with 5G. They should try and be clear about what they mean.

[corrado33]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Half or your arguments are personal attacks and deflection. The funny part is you have yet to address the studies about these types of electromagnetic waves having adverse effects on plants. You can talk about theorticals all you want but I will trust real life experiments because that is the practical way to do things. 

What.... studies? Can't find any? Now you're deflecting away from the original argument.

 

Why don't you give this a read.

 

https://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/rfradiation.html

 

And I quote: 

 

Quote

Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to rapidly heat biological tissue. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, that is, levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven.

 

To paraphrase: If you don't feel it burning you, it's not going to hurt you.

[Brooksie359]

8 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

What.... studies? Can't find any? Now you're deflecting away from the original argument.

 

Why don't you give this a read.

 

https://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/rfradiation.html

 

And I quote: 

 

 

To paraphrase: If you don't feel it burning you, it's not going to hurt you.

http://www.eurekaselect.com/node/141391/article/effects-of-wi-fi-radiation-on-germination-and-growth-of-broccoli-pea-red-clover-and-garden-cress-seedlings-a-partial-replication-study

Here is one of many. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Kind of - but when they're talking the higher frequency bands, they're talking about the 28 GHz+ bands, not 5 GHz. I'm just pointing out that people are using 5 GHz and 5G interchangeably. This is incorrect, unless you're specifically referring to a carrier that will be using 5 GHz.

In fact, I can only find one single band (out of about... 40?) near the 5 GHz frequency:

Band n79 ("4.7 GHz", but actually between 4.4 GHz and 5 GHz)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

 

Furthermore, I can't find a single carrier/country that is actually even intending on using the n79 Band:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_5G_NR_networks

 

In fact, it looks like the vast majority of carriers are choosing to use the n78 Band ("3.5 GHz" - 3.3 GHz to 3.8 GHz).

 

So, I reiterate, people are confusing 5 GHz with 5G. They should try and be clear about what they mean.

What I mean is that if people want to talk about comparative effects of moving to higher frequency (as I did), that is the same basic principles moving from 2.4 to 5GHz wifi as it is moving from the 300Mhz-1GHz 4G to the higher frequency 5G bands. Of course that doesnt apply for the reused 4G bands, but still.

[dalekphalm]

22 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

What I mean is that if people want to talk about comparative effects of moving to higher frequency (as I did), that is the same basic principles moving from 2.4 to 5GHz wifi as it is moving from the 300Mhz-1GHz 4G to the higher frequency 5G bands. Of course that doesnt apply for the reused 4G bands, but still.

Sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. People are straight up using "5G" to mean "5 GHz". Yes the comparisons are similar (though perhaps not exactly the same, given how the upper band on 5G is like 28 GHz).

 

So while the comparison can be useful, it's important to be specific about what we're talking about.

 

Are we talking about 5 GHz WIFI or are we talking about 5G? Because they are not the same thing and we should not confuse them.

[exetras]

18 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Prove it.

 

What you have written here is a prime example of cognitive dissonance. 

There an experiment you can do at home, put a plant or a piece of a plant in a microwave and make it run for 10 seconds. You are going to blast it with ~1000W of 2.4Ghz for 10 seconds.

 

Its not going to look good after that.

 

And this is the other point about this whole radio waves debate, cell phone towers and and cell phone themselves use a lot less power to send off your data signals. I believe LTE uses between .05W and .25W to transmit. Its not enough to do any sort of damage.

[exetras]

duplicate...

Edited February 14, 2019 by exetras

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, exetras said:

There an experiment you can do at home, put a plant or a piece of a plant in a microwave and make it run for 10 seconds. You are going to blast it with ~1000W of 2.4Ghz for 10 seconds.

 

Its not going to look good after that.

What exactly does that experiment prove? That if you stick something inside a 1000W faraday cage and blast it with energy it will die? Yeah no shit. That's not relevant to 5G though, unless you plan on buying a commercial 5G Radio Tower and sticking it in between your mattresses.

 

For context, a Microwave is somewhere in the range of 5000 to 10,000 times more powerful than a WIFI router.

 

Additionally, the effects of Microwave radiation diminish drastically with distance - only a few feet away, and that plant would be totally unharmed.

4 hours ago, exetras said:

And this is the other point about this whole radio waves debate, cell phone towers and and cell phone themselves use a lot less power to send off your data signals. I believe LTE uses between .05W and .25W to transmit. Its not enough to do any sort of damage.

On the phone side of things, yes. The Cellular tower itself uses somewhere between 3 kW and 6 kW, depending on the size of the tower. But at the same time, those towers are 100m and 200m tall, respectively, so you're not anywhere near the power source.

 

The main danger of Radio is that if the power is too high, it can cook you by heating up your molecules. This won't cause cancer, but it can kill you. But we've WELL UNDERSTOOD the relationship between radio wave power and danger to humans for many many years, which is why there are strict requirements for how close something can be to a radio transmitter. Once you're outside of the danger zone, there's no risk.

[corrado33]

18 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

http://www.eurekaselect.com/node/141391/article/effects-of-wi-fi-radiation-on-germination-and-growth-of-broccoli-pea-red-clover-and-garden-cress-seedlings-a-partial-replication-study

Here is one of many. 

Aw man a test done by high school students for their science fair project? Wow... solid science there. 

 

Sigh... mean and maximum power from that study = 20–40 and 96 mW/m^2 That's milliwatts per meter squared.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5703119/  Also note, this is an actual published paper.... done by.... scientists.... not high school students. 

 

Average exposure to teachers who wore detectors while in school all day? 

 

0.3 mW/m^2 That's....2 orders of magnitude lower...

 

Further supporting my point of "IF YOU'RE NOT STANDING NEXT TO THE TRANSMITTER, YOU'LL BE FINE"

 

[corrado33]

5 hours ago, exetras said:

There an experiment you can do at home, put a plant or a piece of a plant in a microwave and make it run for 10 seconds. You are going to blast it with ~1000W of 2.4Ghz for 10 seconds.

 

Its not going to look good after that.

Hahahahahahahaha

 

When did low power cell phone radiation turn into high power microwave? Are you aware of the inverse square law for electromagnetic radiation? Let's say the transmitter is 6 kw, and the tower is 100 m tall. 

 

The inverse squared law states that the intensity of the power is I = P/(4Pir^2) therefore, if an average adult man (90 kg, 1.9 m^2 surface area) were standing at the base of that tower and was therefore 100m away from the transmitter, he'd be receiving a dose of 0.0477 W/m^2. Or 47 mW/m^2 (already on par with what you experience from your wifi router.). Then we look up the guidelines, and even on the "radiation is scary" websites that you guys like to get your sources from, it says that anything under 2W/kg is safe. https://www.defendershield.com/safe-levels-electromagnetic-radiation/

 

So, 0.0477 W/m^2 * 1.9 m^2 = 0.0907 W experienced by the guy at any time. Now divide that by his weight and you get.... 0.001008 W/kg. That's... 3 orders of magnitude lower than what even the poorly researched, echo chamber websites are claiming is dangerous. And that's literally standing at the base of the cell phone tower. Do the calculation for someone that lives a mile away? 

 

That's a distance of 1603 m to the transmitter....

 

that's... 0.00000233 W/m^2 or 0.00233 mW/m^2

 

Blah blah blah math

 

0.0000000492 W/kg. That's.... 8 orders of magnitude lower than the "safe" limit set by the fear mongering websites. Also of note... cell phone towers have a range of ~45 miles....

 

The simple fact is... the math proves you guys are idiots.  

 

Let's put this into context.

 

Sunlight around the world is averaged out to be 160 W/m^2 at the surface for a 24 hour period (so... including the night when the sun isn't shining.) During the day that'd mean it's probably close to double that, but let's play it safe and say 1.5x the amount. 240 W/m^2. 3 to 5% of the sun's light that reaches the ground is UV. Let's assume 3% and give you the benefit of the doubt. That's 7.2 W/m^2. That's 0.152 W/kg, from the UV radiation only.... 152 mW/kg. Already 3 times what you'd experience by standing literally under a cell phone tower. 

 

But, since you are so interested in including lower frequency, longer wavelength radiation (such as microwaves or radio waves) let's include the entire spectrum of the sun.

 

240 W/m^2 blah blah blah math 5.07 W/kg for an average adult male. That's NOT SAFE according to the "radiation is dangerous" types. 

 

It's also freaking 9 orders of magnitude higher than what you'd experience from being a mile away from a cell phone tower. 

 

To put THAT into context..... 9 orders of magnitude... that's the difference between 1 dollar... and 1 trillion dollars. Your 4 cm long finger and 40 million kilometers... (roughly the circumference of the earth...... 1000 times.....) Or even funnier.... roughly the distance between the earth and mars at closest approach... (56 million km)

 

The argument of "science hasn't definitely proven if they are dangerous or not" is dumb. MOST of the current science shows no effect except on a very specific species and gender of rat (and they ended up living longer.... somehow.) And that's ASSUMING that a higher power source closer to the rat for shorter time is equivalent to a low power source over a much longer period of time (a bad assumption because of many reasons I won't discuss). You say "science is inconclusive", where I say "most of the science says it's safe, and the science that says it's not safe isn't able to be replicated" 

 

This is the whole freaking anti-vax argument again.

 

Science is a subject of TRENDS. We don't need to test every milliHz to know that the entire range is safe. If 5 GHz is safe to be in your house, 6 GHz is also safe on a cell phone tower. It's very unlikely that a very specific wavelength of radiation would have deleterious health effects where as everything around it doesn't. 

 

Radiation isn't like other things in life that most people relate to. It does not accumulate like you think it does. You can't relate it to something like eating too much food for 5 years straight, eventually you'd get fat. Radiation is basically a probability. The higher the energy of the photon, the higher the probability that it will affect a molecule in your cells. That probability is taken into account EVERY time a photon hits your body. And most people don't understand probability. If I ask most people, If I roll a dice 5 times and don't get a 6, what's the probability that I'll get a six on the next roll. Many people would say "100%, because 6s come up once every 6 rolls." That's.... not how it works. Now let's take this back to radiation. Let's say that a UV photon has a 1% (totally made up number) chance of ionizing an atom in your body. When you do the math, and take a much lower energy photon, that number goes down by many... many orders of magnitude extremely quickly. So instead of a photon having 1% chance of ionizing an atom, it has a 0.000000000000001 % chance. 

 

Am I saying it'll never happen? Absolutely not. Science doesn't say that either, but life is about acceptable risks. Would the world experience fewer cancer patients if we didn't have a bunch of em waves floating around and we stayed in a basement all day? Probably. Is that a life? No. You have a much.... much higher chance of dying from heart disease or getting hit by lightning or getting run over by a train or being trampled by a cow than being hurt by low power radio waves. 

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, corrado33 said:

Aw man a test done by high school students for their science fair project? Wow... solid science there. 

 

Sigh... mean and maximum power from that study = 20–40 and 96 mW/m^2 That's milliwatts per meter squared.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5703119/  Also note, this is an actual published paper.... done by.... scientists.... not high school students. 

 

Average exposure to teachers who wore detectors while in school all day? 

 

0.3 mW/m^2 That's....2 orders of magnitude lower...

  

Further supporting my point of "IF YOU'RE NOT STANDING NEXT TO THE TRANSMITTER, YOU'LL BE FINE" 

 

Actually it's researchers replicating an experiment first conducted by high schoolers. Nothing wrong in that per se.

 

Unfortunately these are fringe researchers; Magda Havas is a well known EHS crackpot. And it's published in a rubber-stamp journal whose publisher is also infamous for invitation spam.

 

Here's a skeptics stackexchange discussion of the original experiment as well as the later replication study.

[corrado33]

24 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Actually it's researchers replicating an experiment first conducted by high schoolers. Nothing wrong in that per se.

 

Unfortunately these are fringe researchers; Magda Havas is a well known EHS crackpot. And it's published in a rubber-stamp journal whose publisher is also infamous for invitation spam.

 

Here's a skeptics stackexchange discussion of the original experiment as well as the later replication study.

Good info, just a quote from the stackexchange:

 

Quote

Norwegian science journalist Gunnar Tjomlid published an article [Norwegian language] in the online newspaper Nettavisen.

Blogger Pepijn van Erp summarised it in English.

In brief, the experiment was not properly controlled, not blinded, had publication bias, was misreported, had faulty statistical analysis, had bias in the methodology and relied on a cherry-picked hypothesis.

The WiFi and control group were not just different because of the presence of the routers. On the pictures in the report it can be seen that also the laptops in the WiFi group were placed quite near to the plates. It’s very likely that this had an effect on airflow and temperature around the plates and that could have an effect on germination, which has nothing to do with the presence of EM-fields.

 

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, corrado33 said:

Aw man a test done by high school students for their science fair project? Wow... solid science there.

Reminds me of a study pointed to by people who think microwaves cause cancer, a little girl in like 4th grade took 2 plants and gave one normal tap water and the other was given microwaved tap water (after cooling) and the one that got microwaved water died.

 

People touted this experiment and said "even a 4th grader can figure it out" but in reality I don't trust 4th graders to control for variables.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, corrado33 said:

Hahahahahahahaha

 

When did low power cell phone radiation turn into high power microwave? Are you aware of the inverse square law for electromagnetic radiation? Let's say the transmitter is 6 kw, and the tower is 100 m tall. 

 

The inverse squared law states that the intensity of the power is I = P/(4Pir^2) therefore, if an average adult man (90 kg, 1.9 m^2 surface area) were standing at the base of that tower and was therefore 100m away from the transmitter, he'd be receiving a dose of 0.0477 W/m^2. Or 47 mW/m^2 (already on par with what you experience from your wifi router.). Then we look up the guidelines, and even on the "radiation is scary" websites that you guys like to get your sources from, it says that anything under 2W/kg is safe. https://www.defendershield.com/safe-levels-electromagnetic-radiation/

 

So, 0.0477 W/m^2 * 1.9 m^2 = 0.0907 W experienced by the guy at any time. Now divide that by his weight and you get.... 0.001008 W/kg. That's... 3 orders of magnitude lower than what even the poorly researched, echo chamber websites are claiming is dangerous. And that's literally standing at the base of the cell phone tower. Do the calculation for someone that lives a mile away? 

 

That's a distance of 1603 m to the transmitter....

 

that's... 0.00000233 W/m^2 or 0.00233 mW/m^2

 

Blah blah blah math

 

0.0000000492 W/kg. That's.... 8 orders of magnitude lower than the "safe" limit set by the fear mongering websites. Also of note... cell phone towers have a range of ~45 miles....

 

The simple fact is... the math proves you guys are idiots.  

 

Let's put this into context.

 

Sunlight around the world is averaged out to be 160 W/m^2 at the surface for a 24 hour period (so... including the night when the sun isn't shining.) During the day that'd mean it's probably close to double that, but let's play it safe and say 1.5x the amount. 240 W/m^2. 3 to 5% of the sun's light that reaches the ground is UV. Let's assume 3% and give you the benefit of the doubt. That's 7.2 W/m^2. That's 0.152 W/kg, from the UV radiation only.... 152 mW/kg. Already 3 times what you'd experience by standing literally under a cell phone tower. 

 

But, since you are so interested in including lower frequency, longer wavelength radiation (such as microwaves or radio waves) let's include the entire spectrum of the sun.

 

240 W/m^2 blah blah blah math 5.07 W/kg for an average adult male. That's NOT SAFE according to the "radiation is dangerous" types. 

 

It's also freaking 9 orders of magnitude higher than what you'd experience from being a mile away from a cell phone tower. 

 

To put THAT into context..... 9 orders of magnitude... that's the difference between 1 dollar... and 1 trillion dollars. Your 4 cm long finger and 40 million kilometers... (roughly the circumference of the earth...... 1000 times.....) Or even funnier.... roughly the distance between the earth and mars at closest approach... (56 million km)

 

The argument of "science hasn't definitely proven if they are dangerous or not" is dumb. MOST of the current science shows no effect except on a very specific species and gender of rat (and they ended up living longer.... somehow.) And that's ASSUMING that a higher power source closer to the rat for shorter time is equivalent to a low power source over a much longer period of time (a bad assumption because of many reasons I won't discuss). You say "science is inconclusive", where I say "most of the science says it's safe, and the science that says it's not safe isn't able to be replicated" 

 

This is the whole freaking anti-vax argument again.

 

Science is a subject of TRENDS. We don't need to test every milliHz to know that the entire range is safe. If 5 GHz is safe to be in your house, 6 GHz is also safe on a cell phone tower. It's very unlikely that a very specific wavelength of radiation would have deleterious health effects where as everything around it doesn't. 

 

Radiation isn't like other things in life that most people relate to. It does not accumulate like you think it does. You can't relate it to something like eating too much food for 5 years straight, eventually you'd get fat. Radiation is basically a probability. The higher the energy of the photon, the higher the probability that it will affect a molecule in your cells. That probability is taken into account EVERY time a photon hits your body. And most people don't understand probability. If I ask most people, If I roll a dice 5 times and don't get a 6, what's the probability that I'll get a six on the next roll. Many people would say "100%, because 6s come up once every 6 rolls." That's.... not how it works. Now let's take this back to radiation. Let's say that a UV photon has a 1% (totally made up number) chance of ionizing an atom in your body. When you do the math, and take a much lower energy photon, that number goes down by many... many orders of magnitude extremely quickly. So instead of a photon having 1% chance of ionizing an atom, it has a 0.000000000000001 % chance. 

 

Am I saying it'll never happen? Absolutely not. Science doesn't say that either, but life is about acceptable risks. Would the world experience fewer cancer patients if we didn't have a bunch of em waves floating around and we stayed in a basement all day? Probably. Is that a life? No. You have a much.... much higher chance of dying from heart disease or getting hit by lightning or getting run over by a train or being trampled by a cow than being hurt by low power radio waves. 

I think math has gotten to your head a little. You are doing math based on a conclusion. You are assuming what part of the wave is causing the issue which in your mind is power. You are very narrow minded tbh. I would like to reiterate that I am neither saying that 5g is harmful or it isn't harmful. I am saying that I would rather not have it around me because it's an unnessisary technology and the long term effects on the body are unknown. 

[Pixel5]

we have the wonderful story of a GSM tower being built in a town somewhere and right after it was done people started complaining about headache and not being able to sleep.

 

shortly after there was an analysis done and engineers really started to wonder how bad things were going to get once they actually power it as it has not even been hooked up yet 

[Kawaii Koneko]

On 2/12/2019 at 10:28 AM, fasauceome said:

This is a super subversive way of saying "there's no risk" but this is how you word it if you feel like cell phones cause cancer

Probably the same way as people who think vaccines cause autism... 

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think math has gotten to your head a little. You are doing math based on a conclusion. You are assuming what part of the wave is causing the issue which in your mind is power. You are very narrow minded tbh. I would like to reiterate that I am neither saying that 5g is harmful or it isn't harmful. I am saying that I would rather not have it around me because it's an unnessisary technology and the long term effects on the body are unknown. 

But 5G is just Radio Waves at various specific (not-new) frequencies. So the effects on the body are pretty well understood. You've yet to justify otherwise.

The specific frequencies used by 5G are often actually already in use right now by 3G and LTE, along with lots of other things. The difference between 5G and other tech using the same frequency is how the data is encoded - not how the frequency itself works.

[Brooksie359]

53 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But 5G is just Radio Waves at various specific (not-new) frequencies. So the effects on the body are pretty well understood. You've yet to justify otherwise.

The specific frequencies used by 5G are often actually already in use right now by 3G and LTE, along with lots of other things. The difference between 5G and other tech using the same frequency is how the data is encoded - not how the frequency itself works.

I already justified it earlier in the post so I am unsure what you are talking about.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

I already justified it earlier in the post so I am unsure what you are talking about.

But you didn't justify it. Your justification was that WIFI kills plants. But @corrado33 already explained why that isn't a concern with 5G, since the power involved is so infinitesimally smaller - that you cannot get close enough to get even a fraction of the energy that WIFI will give you.

Plus, there were definitely flaws in the research, such as the fact that they didn't properly control for variables (the "WIFI" plant also had laptops sitting right beside the plant, which both increases the radio wave concentration, and adds significant other variables like heat exhaust and dryer air.

 

Plus, we're not plants.

 

Certainly, more research should continue, but there's nothing to suggest that 5G would be harmful in any capacity to humans.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

But you didn't justify it. Your justification was that WIFI kills plants. But @corrado33 already explained why that isn't a concern with 5G, since the power involved is so infinitesimally smaller - that you cannot get close enough to get even a fraction of the energy that WIFI will give you.

Plus, there were definitely flaws in the research, such as the fact that they didn't properly control for variables (the "WIFI" plant also had laptops sitting right beside the plant, which both increases the radio wave concentration, and adds significant other variables like heat exhaust and dryer air.

 

Plus, we're not plants.

 

Certainly, more research should continue, but there's nothing to suggest that 5G would be harmful in any capacity to humans.

So you say research should continue yet it isn't a justification to want more testing? Yeah not sure what to say to that. 

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

So you say research should continue yet it isn't a justification to want more testing? Yeah not sure what to say to that. 

I'm saying research should still continue, but since there's no credible evidence for harm to humans, that should not prevent 5G deployment.

 

Just like we continue to research many things, just to make sure that our understanding doesn't change over time.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

I'm saying research should still continue, but since there's no credible evidence for harm to humans, that should not prevent 5G deployment.

 

Just like we continue to research many things, just to make sure that our understanding doesn't change over time.

I would rather have more research done prior to deploying it. Also 5g is unnessisary. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would rather have more research done prior to deploying it.

Why? There's no credible evidence that there's any harm to humans. Since the science is well understood, unless some research paper uncovers some potential harm to humans (plants dying that are exposed to thousands of times the energy you'll get exposed to is not potential harm to humans)? There seems to be valid reason to stop deployment.

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also 5g is unnessisary. 

Why? Internet is "unnecessary". Why not just shut off all Cellular?