> Actually, this sensationalist piece is the real wolf crier,
> This article has been debunked numerous times by numerous people since it was
> published, and criticizes actual sound science while offering little more than
> empty, baseless, and/or false claims throughout.
fearmongering that justifies itself by repeating an echo chamber of
pseudoscience. And he tops it off by calling The New York Times a fake
news source, while taking Russia Today, a genuine fake news site whose
mission is literally to disrupt western civilization, as gospel.
I am no fan of "5G", which I put in scare quotes not because the
technology is scary to health, but because it's not really a thing.
Rather, 5G refers to pretty much everything the mobile phone industry
has done since 4G LTE reached a certain stable milestone (5=4+1). The
get the carriers to keep buying, now that their LTE upgrades are
complete and, frankly, working pretty well.
5G itself, then, is really a set of tweaks to LTE, not all new
technology. It has two major new capabilities. One is the ability to
to operate over a wider range of frequencies, including upper microwave
and millimeter wave bands. The FCC has been busily auctioning off upper
microwave bands, as if they could be used for 5G mobile. They can't,
because they're so sensitive to blockage that they only really work with
rather literal line of sight, and not over much distance. But the FCC
wants to take these off the market so they're not available for regular,
first-come first-serve private microwave licensing. Some telcos might
use them in some dense urban areas for short-haul (