33 ms·
Quite a weak article, i’m surprised this makes the bar for publication. There’s a fair amount of contradiction too, it makes a distinction of “5G EMF” but then
by CraigJPerry 6y ago
Quite a weak article, i’m surprised this makes the bar for publication.
There’s a fair amount of contradiction too, it makes a distinction of “5G EMF” but then goes on to say 5G is loosely defined. So why 5G EMF and not just EMF? EMF in the Ghz to Thz range is not new. The only extra information conferred by adding 5G to the term is that we’re restricting the concerns to EMF at very low power levels (milliwatts).
I missed any links to let me follow up on the claims of harm found from non ionising radiation. I definitely want to see a bit more of the basis for those claims because if they’re based on findings at megawatts of RF energy then it’s not exactly useful, on the other hand if the findings are based on milliwatts of RF energy, that’s potentially a concern.
Side note: i don’t know if you’ve had a look at the 2.4GHz spectrum recently but i am amazed at the amount of emissions and i live next to mostly fields, genuinely surprised to see much in the way of emissions. Bluetooth beacons are a real stand out surprise, neighbours televisions, bathroom scales, all sorts of things that I wouldn’t expect to beacon when turned off.