>>8305468

>Same scientists that are "raising the alarm about global warming" no doubt.

it is, or their ilk

there is no doubt that EMF "can be dangerous"

but then, so can sunlight, too much and you've caused damage, a lot more and long term… cancer!

so there is genuine cause for concern, but the chicken little the sky is falling approach isn't conducive to good government

I've worked with the stuff (broadcasting engineer) all my life and I know it's dangerous if exposures are exceeded, but we pretty well know those limits

>>8305550

better yet, instead of asking that anon to prove a negative why don't you show some proof that

5G devices as produced and installed are harmful.

>protip you can't

of course you can find all sorts of studies that show EMF can be harmful, but if you look at exposure levels you'll find that levels in the studies are always much higher than used in communications devices that are in the public space

>>8305555

>>8305676

>What a recipe

the tinfoil is thick on some

the level of scientific illiteracy even among "scientists" is amazing sometimes

It causes people to believe the most astounding things