vgnEngineer

Data rate capacities are a dominant reason for switching to 5G. But the way this is realized is for one by going to different frequency bands where there is more available bandwidth. Another great change is that with higher frequencies come smaller wavelengths which means that multiple antennas can be placed in a device allowing for beam forming, better reception (aiming bundles).

Thanks for the contribution!

I would like to point out that the conversation is a bit more complicated (can be), not the facts, the conversation. You can find many many papers showing effects of EM fields on biological life and we need to properly reply to those papers. Otherwise, people who have genuine worries will keep throwing them into the conversation without an honest reply.

What I have seen is that many of those papers have a terrible method section. They don't mention how they generate electromagnetic fields, they don't report measurement equipment, they don't report the setup etc. You and I both know that if you expose a petri dish on a metallic surface to 1GHz signals that it will barely be exposed because the Electric field will be near zero close to the surface. Yet that might be very well going on.

Ive found one paper that had an excellent method. They even show a taper of a TEM flat plate transmission line that looks like it has a nice constant characteristic impedance taper, they have circulators and matched loads etc. Obviously someone knowledgable worked on that and this paper showed no effects on calcium homeostasis. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20676401/

​

At the same time I found a paper that put eggs in a climate chamber with a hanging phone and an 'electro-smog meter' (I kid you not) that claimed to have found changes to biological formation I believe. I mean, as an engineer you can't even imagine the level of incompetency at play but at the same time, you can't blame these researchers because what have they learned?

We need more cooperation between fields.

I have more expertise in the physics side of telecommunication engineering (electrodynamics etc). I'm not very well versed in the protocols of 5G. So I'm afraid I don't know.

The 5G conspiracy builds on a proposed correlation that everytime and everywhere we introduce new radiowave technologies there are pandemics and epidemics. When you look into the proposed correlation of course there is nothing there because the behavior of the spread of covid 19 follows exaxtly the spread of a virus, not sickness from radiation exposure and virusses have been around forever. Its a nice surface level idea but below the surface there is nothing substantial there. And sadly people dont often go past the surface

Its a tough issue and some people definitely respond better to a good conversation than others.

What I have discovered is that the ability to persuade someone of the scientific view point is very much dependent upon their willingness to have the discussion. A lot of times people prefer to just make blanket statements about something but the moment you engange and initiate the conversation they opt out by just making fallacy after fallacy. With those people its I think better to stick to keep it simple and give it time.

But I think a lot of people that have genuine worry also care about the facts. Any good productive conversation starts with a friendly agreement that both parties are willing to engage and talk about the issue and most importantly 'respond to a point'.

From what I've learned as a teacher, most work is done when you start by what the other already knows. So instead of presenting your information as a counter, you first comletely discover the other persons ideas and when you have them, take them to their natural conclusion which often isn't where they think it will take them.

In the case of your mother, assuming she is willing to have the conversation, the conversation could start simply by asking her what it is she thinks is true and then to ask 'why' she thinks it. Answers like 'because ... said' are fine, this stage is purely in order to expose both the listener you and the other person to the nature of their believes.

Following that you might ask her: how do you think that that might work? She might respond with: I don't know but i believe it. No judgement here, this is fine. But at this point its no longer about the subject matter. What is crucial at this point is to talk about whether its good to believe things just because you know or someone said so. If a person indicates that that knowledge from back in the days is and will forever have them believe that fact, then there is no where to go.

Consider the issue of the subway. You might ask her for example: are you aware that the subway system also works on high voltage lines? She might respond with yes or no. Then you might ask: are you worried about those? If not why?.

The best lessons learned are simply learned by leading people to new ideas only by asking them questions. You might be a source of facts but this is often only useful if they themselves asked you to share those facts.