As a nutrional, and natural health-and healing expert, I've been aware of the dangers of 5G for a long time; long before this "covid" thing. Many studies have been done. The major issues are, first of all, that it causes the oxygen molecules in your blood to oscillate at such a rate that it prevents your cells from absorbing the oxygen. One can thus die from suffocation. It also alters your DNA, the range of consequences of which are as yet unknown. In animal trials it has also been proven to cause infertility and cancers. Can humanity afford to take such a risk? A well respected molecular biologist has called it "the dumbest and most dangerous experiment in the history of mankind." Dare we take such a risk? The risks I've stated have indeed been proved, but in lieu of long studies, as it's new technology, no one has any clue as to the long-term effects. All these findings have been published in respected medical journals long before the current hysteria and disinfo which currently abounds since "covid."

Then provide the url to any scientific studies supporting your claims. Otherwise, you are making unproven claims.

With nearly 8 billion people globally, yeah, I believe we can.

At 60 GHz, the oxygen molecule becomes highly absorbent of electromagnetic energy, which weakens the 60 GHz signals over distance, keeping them from overshooting their intended target.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/sub10-systems-oxygen-absorption-makes-60-ghz-perfect-for-backhaul

WiFi of any kind does emit RF, or EMF, radiation. This radiation in large quantities over long periods of time can cause harm to the body. However, 5 GHz WiFi isn't absolutely more dangerous than 2.4 GHz WiFi, it all depends on how close to the emitting router you are and what devices you're using.
http://www.legacyresearch.com/why-5g-wont-make-you-sick/

Most claims you will read online stems from the fact that radio waves are technically radiation. Although that word tends to be viewed as negative, not all radiation is bad. As radio is non-ionizing and does not excite electrons and knock them out of orbit, 5G can’t cause DNA damage, cause cancer, or develop Coronavirus. Every study that claims otherwise has been proven false and inaccurate.
http://www.howtogeek.com/662454/no-5g-does-not-cause-coronavirus/

A recent study in Denmark, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, analyzed the records of more than 358,000 mobile phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry. The “analysis found no association between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years.”
http://www.legacyresearch.com/why-5g-wont-make-you-sick/


http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9016183

That last article was a very good summary of the current concepts published in research on this topic.

It's bad because it uses too many G's.

3G was bad enough, then 4G was getting a bit out of hand.

Now 5G is obviously just stupid. Relying only on so many G's could be dangerous.

A's and are more stable. _'s can't be knocked over at all.

E's, H's, K's, M's, N's, R's and X's are OK; L's and Z's are lightweight.

Most of the rest are as unstable as G's, and best avoided.

Haha :)
I know G can be a code name for gangster.

US Government Accidentally Releases Electromagnetic Mind Control Documents In FOIA Request

April 24, 2018


https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/04/24/us-government-accidentally-releases-electromagnetic-mind-control-documents-in-foia-request/?fbclid=IwAR1FbCumJLJOoHBsQzOjp5mgMHNh-c-CeY0JyuZ-8eCflYX0_76H8P6nQos

Back in the late 1980's through 2000 I worked in different aspects of government and private industry in telecom security.

Initially the focus was protecting telecommunications from interception and other forms of interference (blocking, spoofing, etc...).

But the tenor changed, at least became more openly hostile to the domestic side of the house with the ascent of the Clinton administration. (But long before this, the American public had been warned of the dangers of the Military- Industrial Complex, by no less a personage than an outgoing US president).

I saw this myself, reflected in a plethora of government domestic spying programs which openly flouted the Constitutional protections of privacy: ECHELON, CARNIVORE, NSA KEY, MAGIC LANTERN, ESCROW KEY and many more.

The Left (who were behind a lot of these illegal domestic spying programs) responded with ridicule ("Woo woo whacko, Conspiracy Theories, Tinfoil Hat"). The Readership is invited to look up Operation Mockingbird.

Fast forward a couple decades and Snowden discloses a tremendous amount of information as to actual government (and Unconstitutional) domestic spying programs, such as STINGRAY and PRISM. Essentially, the folks who distrusted government were right all along, and the Leftists who argued vociferously from abject ignorance were wrong.

Worst yet, there were those in the know, like the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who knew, and directed such domestic spying programs, and lied under oath to Congress.

These are established facts. If people have doubts, it's very likely legitimate concerns about a government, combined with a huge corporate complex who have nothing but contempt for privacy and the welfare of the American people.

This distrust is well-deserved.

I don't know all that much about 5G, but I don't dismiss the concerns others have expressed about it. The denials seem to be coming from the same quarters as the earlier denials about illegal governmental domestic spying.

The shrill tenor of those denials only tend to make me think it's 1998 all over again.

so does anyone know that they are already talking about 6G.

Whether I've done anything wrong or not, it's an invasion of my private, personal life; not my public life where things matter.

I don't know whether 5G is something to be concerned about or not. But I imagine that if there is a significant health concern to it, it is only as great as all the other things we do to ourselves that aren't good for us. We eat doughnuts, breathe radon in our basements, sleep irregular hours, drink well water with arsenic in it, and all kinds of other things that are measurably dangerous for us. Our bodies can repair a lot of that, even the damage from UV exposure, after all. So why not the same with other forms of radiation, in moderation? I remember reading an article once from 1923 about radio waves--even then, people were claiming that it was killing the birds. Where the tipping point is, again, I don't know.

Any unnatural signal -in any form -may be disruptive to the natural state/process.

The greater danger is collected information and manipulation.
We are caught in a struggle between the perceived necessity for human omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence to deal with various threats -and its being wielded by those who are a threat. Ever-greater tools can be used by anyone once they exist.
Humans can not employ such powers effectively toward good -because we are not unified or disciplined -and we are many individuals who often don't have positive regard for each other.

Then there is the AI problem.
AI doesn't actually have to attain self-awareness to be a threat.
It simply has to make decisions in unforeseen ways -and that is assuming it is intended for good.
As we interact with AI through our many devices -and give it control over things -depend on it for our perception of reality and ability to accomplish anything -it is also an extremely powerful weapon. It has the potential to be automatically and proactively destructive -psychologically (programs that mess with your emotions/thought processes/play on your fears -all based on collected personal information or general knowledge of psychology), physically (hacking drones, self-driving vehicles, traffic signals) -and in just about any other way.

Once packaged, such things are only a mouse-click away -and may even been unleashed unwittingly if we do not consider everything.

Rather than huge cell towers, 5G requires many small devices essentially everywhere -which are stationary as opposed to mobile as with most of our personal devices, so the potential for the collection of real-time information with extreme location accuracy is greatly increased -as is the ability to interact with our individual, addressable devices -all at exponentially-increased speeds.

I agree 100% . That includes those agencies like the EPA FDA and others who give a free pass to the highest bidder ; a lot of those officials don't care about the public or even those corporations that haggle with them for their approval. As soon as one of their drugs or chemicals start killing people or destroy the environment they turn around and throw them under the bus. Yet, they continue to function as legitimate agencies until the next time a drug that has supposedly passed the " "rigid requirements" gets a class action lawsuit thrown at them; remember fen-phen was FDA approved until people started dropping dead from aneurysms. Even recently an over-the-counter heartburn medication has a class action lawsuit filed against it as well as a well-known talcum powder. These are just a couple of examples out of hundreds. And the greedy, arrogant CEOs and agency officials get no more than a fine or transferred to an office out of sight. There's hardly ever any justice. They toss money at victims and their families with complete indifference.

LEAVE YOUR PHONE HOME!!!! Oh heaven forbid!!!

I do lots of times. I think I'm the only one at the family thankgiving that doesn't have one in my hand. Mine gets tossed in my truck during work. A flipper protects the screen, and all the junk I toss on top of it.

The reason 5G is bad is because the carriers aren't being honest in marketing. Verizon is the worst offender. Despite the claims of the blonde airhead hobbling around on the six-inch heels, the only true 5G Verizon is selling is high band, which is 23 and 39 GHz. Ar that frequency range, the coverage per cell site is less than 2000 feet. Plus, walls or sometimes even glass can block the signal. For this reason, it is only available in the urban core of some major cities.

What Verizon claims is 5G is actually an enhanced version of 4G LTE. So, that expensive iPhone 12 is actually performing about the same as a $100 Blu Phone from Best Buy. But the blonde won't tell you this.

There are three 5G bands: Low Band (600 MHz), Mid Band (2.5 GHz), and High Band (23/39 GHz).

Low Band is what used to be a large swath of the UHF television band, which the FCC reclaimed from the broadcasters and sold at auction to the cellular and PCS carriers. T-Mobile bought much of it, and has been actively building-out nationwide. But speed is limited by the limited bandwidth available, so even though the signals can carry for many miles, there is room for only so much data.

I live in a rural area, close to a major metropolitan area but not close enough. Consequently, the only options I have for home Internet are the cable company, two satellite companies, and T-Mobile 5G. I now subscribe to T-Mobile, and I'm using low band. My speed out of my router is about 75 MB, which is more than enough for my needs but may not be for someone else. I had 200 MB on Spectrum Cable, but the price per month kept escalating to the point where it was no longer a fair deal.

Mid Band is 2.5 GHz, which is just above the 2.4 GHz routers most people use. This is also known as Band 41, and was acquired when T-Mobile purchased Sprint. It is 150 Mhz wide, which is 150% of the spectrum of Low Band (600 MHz). So, speeds will be faster and capacity will be greater. Plus, since the tuned antennas are already there, upgrading service is much easier.

High Band is the highest of the three 5G bands, and it offers the most bandwidth and fastest speeds. Speeds of 1 GB are typical, as long as you can physically "see" the cell site. But the path loss is so great that the cells only cover several hundred feet, which means you need a lot of them. So at present, only the downtown area of large cities, some sporting venues, and some airports, are so equipped.

So, the question was, is 5G bad? No, not really. There are many advantages to 5G, most of which we won't fully realize until technology matures. But the marketing of 5G sucks, because it plays on the ignorance of the consumer, who will willingly rush out to buy a $1,200 iPhone, only to find out it performs no better than the 4G LTE phone he just surrendered. But the blonde in the ill-fitting suit and high heels was so convincing.

10G is just around the corner.
Actually, it's already here.

Then there should be a substantive amount of independent peer reviewed studies that would back your assertion. Care to cite any?

That's just too many G's. Who needs so many G's?

I had heard about B or D company,
soon look likes will have G company here.
Hello, who is it?
G...... Future G 🤠