> The author didn't raise this but I've seen others who have brought up the nebulous "radiation" argument against 5G. Here's a good litmus test: if someone can'

> The author didn't raise this but I've seen others who have brought up the nebulous "radiation" argument against 5G. Here's a good litmus test: if someone can't tell you, at a minimum, what "ionizing radiation" is then you can safely ignore everything they say about "radiation". I often use that test myself, or some variation thereof, However, it doesn't always work. We often regurgitate knowledge from people that couldn't recite precise definitions. As a matter of fact, I think most of the people around me, as well as myself and, I think, a good part of commenters here, wouldn't be able to properly describe ionizing radiation, but yet wouldn't refrain from commenting on related matters. On top of that, I met quite educated and convincing persons bring up (non-ionizing) radiation arguments about 5G, that wouldn't have any problem telling you what ionizing radiation is. I've got two friends that I know are more-or-less 5G skeptics, and heard them sharing how frustrated they are that they cannot even give their opinions on these subjects without being ridiculed, so much that they even lie when asked about it, depending on who's aking them, and then watch others spread vaguely similar conspiracy theories. That was quite terrifying to me (at the time). > Here's another: if they can't describe the "radiation" in terms of the radiation exposure from eating a banana, you can also safely ignore them. As far as I know, most people that are (seriously) bringing up radiation arguments about 5G are worried of non-ionizing radiation.