35 Funny Comics With Unexpected Twists That Poke Fun At Our Society By ToonHole Comics

So it's not false what I said when your argument is that 5G is harmful like any phone at any frequency. And of course it is like that, you should never sleep next to your phone f.e.

In any case, is it wise to use ever greater frequency? Don't forget that businesses do not care about your health, they compete to sell you more products and make more profits; the government, which supposed to regulate those "wild" corporations, does not care about your health either.

how about you shut you trap eh?

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/j4h39x/5g-welcome-to-the-revolution https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629874/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13290 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.20536 http://bit.ly/36ob7tW

What risks are those? I'd like to see a single _credible_ source on these, please.

The risk of using 5g the rest of your life is less than the risk of: Working or living in a stone or brick building Using florescent lights Sitting in front of a CRT Taking an airplane anywhere ever Going out on a sunny day Carrying (not smoking) a pack of cigarettes. That's just radiation risk, and not counting chemical risks like living in a post leaded gasoline and paint era, living in a post asbestos era, having pestacides and herbacides basically dumped on our food because we genetically engineered the food to resist it (not even to get into monoculture food), having the EPA decide not to regulate a chemical known to cause brain defects in children in our water supply, smoke from anything but especially tobacco and coal, sitting on a chair or walking on a rug or carpet treated with fire retardant... Like, there are lots of things to worry about in life and 5g is SO far down that list... Unless your desk is right next to an antenna. Then maybe you should consider a change.

Electric Ed, there was a very well conducted experiment about 15 years back that did show that the radiation from phones can influence the Van der Waals force but no conclusion whether there is a risk to organic tissue at all from this because it is impossible to make conclusions from such an isolated experiment to a human body or any living tissue. So there is no scientific source I know of that can prove a risk to the human body. But on the other hand it can't be excluded neither of course, that's how science works. And a lot of non scientific people love to jump to quick conclusions from that.

I don't think so, Monday, don't forget all other electric/electronic products, consider the number.

arjelio mas, I don't know what nonsense you're talking about, but when you are reading opinions and results of a scientific study, always follow the money, some scientists are bought to produce a "scientific truth"; this is quite common now, the government, which supposed to protect consumers, is corrupt as well. Whom to trust? I would say non-profit organizations which conduct "blind study" which means the scientist are not told what are they expected to find.

Pray tell, how thine F*CK is some radio signal apparently causing negative environmental effects when pollution CLEARLY exists? What's next, Elvis and Lee Harvey Oswald shot Epstein at the Watergate so he didn't leak that the Flat MKultra Landings were a cover-up by the Jewish reptilians who are also Muslamic and wield the 2000-hour lightbulb that 11/10 essential oils salesmothers recommend?

There's good reason to fear new things. A lot of modern products and technologies are proven harmful. Prove something is safe, rather than assuming it is. For example, when there's a new medication, people have to volunteer to try it in the experimental phase. Drug companies can't just say "we invented a thing and we think it'll be great" to be allowed to sell it. That would be irresponsible. Well, building materials, clothing, new foods, transportation, computer tech, and so on aren't injected into the bloodstream or designed to purposely affect our insides, but if there's a chance it will affect our bodies at all shouldn't we test it before assuming it's healthy to use? I'm all for reasonable necessary risks, but only NECESSARY ones. Cars are dangerous but many eople need to drive cars to work. Do people need to use 5G? Or can we all reject it and stick to 4G? Let there be no market for it until it's proven safe? I don't know about you but I don't want to be a lab rat.

Exactly the fact that there are no long term studies for something should worry you. Because it means that we have really just zero idea what it does in the long term, we just hope it won't do anything. For many decades they had no idea that smoking could be bad for your health. Then long term studies came out and now everyone knows that they cause cancer.

P.S. written from my 4G phone, haha

Have you noticed how many items have Proposition 65 warnings on them? "This product contains materials known by the state of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive harm..."I even saw it on a building once. I had to go in if I wanted to work. I didn't know until I arrived, because I never imagined that was a possible thing. Have you noticed the Prop 65 warnings on cars, too? What should I do, never go in a car again? I didn't know about that when I learned to drive. This is not ok, in my book. Instead of warning everyone, gee, maybe make it the law you can't use cancer-causing things in manufacturing? Duhhhh. But a lot of people care more about profit than other people's health, apparently.