That’s ‘good morning’ in Edo
I remember starting many rounds of my primary school debates with “all protocols observed”. I didn’t know what the phrase meant at the time but I’ve grown to understand that, in every objective debate, you must first define the guiding principles.
Many scientists and religious people are guilty of making the same kind of assumption during debates: one assumes that we all live in an evidence-based world, the other assumes that we all live in a faith-based world.
However, if we can agree on one thing, 5G (telecoms) and coronavirus (medicine) both belong to the body of science, then the basis for a scientific debate cannot be unproven theories or religious text, they must be evidence.
The debate about whether radio frequency radiation is dangerous to human health didn’t start with 5G. Studies have shown that RF radiation is “possibly carcinogenic”
. If this is news to you, good morning once again!
But RF radiation is also non-ionising, meaning it lacks sufficient energy to cause cellular damage in the way a virus does.
Another quasi-valid concern is the high cell site density required for mmWave-based 5G networks. But unless your plan is to climb to the top of masts and give every antenna you see a hug, 5G will not be any more harmful to you than its wireless predecessors.
Tech innovation isn’t cost-free. Innovators tend to speed past those costs to get to the benefits, while conspiracy theorists stop there, dress them up and strike a Christopher Columbus-like pose next to ideas that seem novel, and appeal to our inner skeptic.
But does that mean we ought to now look both ways before crossing the 5G street?
Humanity has historically accepted that great innovations like 5G come at a cost. One of the services science provides is to constantly rebalance that cost with the benefits as more evidence, not conspiracies, become available.
Stay in touch! Follow us on Twitter, like our page on Facebook, share this email with a friend, send us an email.