Now 6G is being rolled out.
Are you shitting yourselves?
About the question they were asked: they are not medical researchers, they won't be aware of that. Those questions need to be asked to the industry scientists, not execs. The execs are money people.
And, yes, we have tons of research on health and safety related to 5G. If I was an exec, I would have whipped out google scholar and did a simple search and read off the results. "Senator, did you do any research before coming to this hearing?"
And, yes these organizations DO spend dollars on this specific research: they are not aware of the funding that they put out there to these regulatory industries and bodies that conduct this research (such as IEEE).
Ignorance is not a "gotcha", it's just their ignorance. This video is not evidence of some sort of conspiracy, this video is evidence that Senator Blumenthal didn't do HIS research and is asking the wrong people questions to get his sound byte.
If any of you are actually interested in the data, this study goes back decades, revies thousands of studies, and compiles a list of all the concerns. At the longer wavelength radio waves (not 5G, this is for things like radio towers, Ham Radios, etc.), damage can be done but it is very minor and requires ridiculous situations. At the higher end, the wavelengths are so short that they cannot penetrate the epidermis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7337122/
If you're concerned about 5G being dangerous, you missed the boat entirely on real science and you should be concerned about old school radio technologies, not 5G or 6G.
The higher the frequency the higher the power. Light is much higher frequency (400-700 TERA Hertz!!!) so is much, much more damaging even than this . /s
The higher the frequency the higher the power.
Let's pretend you're serious for a moment (you're definitely joking but these anti-5G retards legit believe that bullshit).
Higher energy based on Planck's Law but that's energy as defined by quantum physics, not classical physics, which is the context you're using it.
The one you're referring to is classical intensity which is proportional to the amplitude of the electric-field oscillations in the light and has to do with how much energy you put into the light.
http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node4.html
But at no point is "power" used in those equations.
Light is much higher frequency (400-700 TERA Hertz!!!) so is much, much more damaging even than this . /s
lmao!
"All that energy, braaah! But I refuse to acknowledge that it only penetrates into the skin by .01 microns."
I'm pretty sure a higher-frequency photon (e.g. blue rather than red) carries more energy. Of course this has no relation to how much energy some communication technology uses, since the energy is the sum of all the photons, not a single one, so the amount of power they transmit with is what matters, and they can have high power at any wavelength.
Like you say, the shorter the wavelength, the more easily it's stopped by almost anything. I read that this is a big issue with 5G, needing basically a line-of-sight to get a good signal. They keep upping the frequency of these wireless technologies, which reduces range and signal pickup.
I'm a little confused by your use of "energy" and "power", and how since they give energy it doesn't say anything about power. Isn't power energy per unit time? Isn't the concern whether the energy is ionizing, and not total magnitude?
(post is archived)