healthwise, it depends on your comfort level with 'ionizing radiation' and if you feel that 5g can be ionizing radiation, or if it is 'non-ionizing radiation.' the balance of argument thus far, especially from vested interests, is that 5g is 'non-ionizing' radiation. the simplest illustration for the power of human manipulated radiation is hiroshima as another example, Connecticut draws about 5500 mw of electricity per day, with about 2200 mw a day coming from just a few acres of development over in Waterford. that's a whole lot of power being generated from radiation in a small space. our new aircraft carriers carry around 500 mw of radiation generated power.
'The global average exposure of humans to ionizing radiation is about 3 mSv (0.3 rem) per year, 80% of which comes from nature. The remaining
20% results from exposure to man-made radiation sources, primarily from
medical imaging. Average man-made exposure is much higher in developed countries, mostly due to
CT scans and
nuclear medicine.'
mebbe some old timers here remember this one:
'For example, at one time, assistants in shoe shops
used X-rays to check a child's shoe size, but this practice was halted when the risks of ionizing radiation were better understood.'
sometimes, our ability runs far ahead of our understanding. science illiteracy? get back to me when many 'scientists' today are even remotely close to ol nikki tesla and his holistic understanding for the electromagnetic spectrum. and why has male fertility potential been halved in the past 50 years? are we frying our junk? idk.
securitywise, 5g is a pandora's box of potential abuse.
