New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

Basically blog spam that cites an activist group that claims to have &quot;published studies&quot; that were published a year ago, having nothing to do with them.<p>It is of course a concern that should be looked at, but we&#x27;re currently in the &quot;fear monger&quot; stage with 5G. Those people who do the studies are the good people, but the people who take it and misrepresent it leverage fear of change&#x2F;the new.

I wonder if a good way to illustrate or dispel the harmfulness of millimeter wave radio would be to compare the wattage&#x2F;sq ft covered. How much energy is carried by these waves compared to 900Mhz or 2.4Ghz radio ?<p>Besides the &#x27;boy who cried wolf&#x27; nature of radio causing cancer, I&#x27;d also like to know the power consumption for the extreme density required to relay gigabit+ connections across town, I think I heard the range between towers is something like 500 ft? There are, ostensibly, not lower power devices to be processing all these connections.

Paper here (not sure if this is the one cited by the article, but sounds like it): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41598-018-22271-3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41598-018-22271-3</a>

What I want to know is who is behind the 5G fear-mongering. I see this all the time and from different places. My poor conspiracy-minded elderly uncle in western Pennsylvania has been had by Fox News and the rest of the insane-right. He sends me stuff like this all the time. What I want to understand is who stands to benefit from 5G not coming to pass.<p>Is it a just one of many conspiracy theories cooked by a Kremlin agency that happened to work in the public sphere? Is there a competing technology stack?

I haven&#x27;t much looked into 5G. Considering that 95% of the time I&#x27;m on WiFi anyway, I really don&#x27;t get this push for faster and faster mobile speeds. (especially if there&#x27;s potential to damage wildlife and us with it)

Interesting. I would like to see more research - especially with humans. That waves used in 4G cause harmful effects on humans was proved to be not true. But those mmWaves for 5G are much higher frequency, and they get absorbed by more materials. Perhaps by human body too? It wouldn’t be healthy to be constantly exposed to waves like that. I definitely would like to see more research in this.

Does FCC work with NIH or other agencies before they approve frequencies like 5G ? There was a recent story about a WiMAX antenna near a school and the parents suspected it was the cause of high cancer rates of students in that school.

I cannot find a link to the study or studies mentioned.

I&#x27;m not surprised. Millimeter wave can do that among other things.

And on top of that nobody really even wants 5G except the companies themselves (and Trump, apparently). Worse range, worse penetration, more power usage, more expensive phones, all for extra bandwidth that won&#x27;t even make a difference in regular usage. I wonder if it will die before it takes off?

Inaccurate article.

It seems odd to me that there are so many anti-5G stories. It almost comes off as deliberate and targeted. I would imagine that the science of what levels and frequencies of EM radiation are safe is settled.