top of page
  • Nicholas Tartaglia

5G good or bad? Let’s Discuss

Written by: Nicholas Tartaglia

April 5th, 2020

Before we dive into this short analysis on the validity of whether 5G is good or bad, you must first forget any biased opinion on the subject you may hold and open yourself up to a critical perspective. Matters like this need to be open for discussion and analysis, since any potential risks can impact us. We are all stakeholders of our society and the evolution it is experiencing, therefore it is important for us to be objective as a whole.

Given that we are in the 21st century, year 2020, for conspiracy theories to continue being prevalent, is an issue, since it creates more chaos and confusion. We are far more connected, on a scale far beyond we would have ever imagined. Easy accessibility to vast amounts of data has allowed the scientific community to strengthen itself on levels never seen before. From cross analyzing vast amounts of research, peer reviews, working alongside experts across the globe and being held accountable for what you put out as a scientist by the strong and respected community. That’s the power we want it to have and project, it's at our own benefit as a society. The reality is that nowadays, if the vast scientific communities, consisting of leading bodies of professional experts, agree on something, it is far more plausible they are right than wrong. Or in the very least, that they are leading us in the right direction with their conclusions, because their conclusion of the subject holds far more weight. There is no room for ego on a personal level, let it go, be critical, and understand how our individual perception of a system can do us more damage than good.

For some odd reason, we often tend to agree with things that are concluded and theorized by the scientific community, yet however, in other areas, we challenge the world experts and leading bodies, when we hold no expert knowledge, and tend to hold biased pre-disposed ideas, selectively choosing data that confirms our own ideas. That is the furthest thing from being an objective individual who wants to add value to the system, because seeking to simply be right degrades the integrity of seeking the truth. To provide an external example, look at climate change and GMO’s. We are quick to accept the scientific data showing we are damaging the planet, and criticize those who oppose the scientific community, but when that same community says GMO’s have no health hazard, we become experts and skeptics. Is it confusing to anyone else, or am I alone? Other than having a preconceived bias to an opinion, what internally triggers disbelief in one subject over another? The following reason summarizes what I believe to be the reason; "confirmation bias is our most treasured enemy. Our opinions, our acumen - all of it, are the result of years of selectively choosing to pay attention to that information only which confirms what our limited minds already accept as the truth" - Ina Catrinescu. There is no logic in that, buffet picking information, and projecting your opinion, that holds no validity since you were not objective to begin with. Reactions such as those, make me wonder as to why you would accept ANYTHING at all from our scientific communities. If you refuse to believe in the system, or to be open to constructive and objective dialogue, then your opinion should hold NO VALUE in the context of an academic discussion to further our knowledge. Pursue the facts, and not the egotistic desire to be right.

Now, to those who believe there is a link between 5G and hazardous health consequences regardless of what the scientific bodies have to say, forget your right to an opinion for a moment. Random biased opinions should hold no value in a subject that should be dictated by nothing other than the evidence that is analyzed and criticized by leading bodies of experts who voice their insight on the subject, publicly putting their reputation on the line, open to criticism from the public, government and their academic peers. That previous sentence is an opinion, without a doubt, but one I believe to be formed on logic, and one that explains why we put more weight into certain groups’ opinions over others. As Bruce Lee so famously says; “You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend". The same can be said with evidence and expert insight. Form your judgement and opinions based on that of the community that work to that specific end of providing more accurate and justified evidence for the betterment of this world. As evidence grows and evolves, so do we with it. Logic and rational needs to prevail in the academic world, or else the root of that system has failed us and our future.

The academic community depends on itself as a form of trust system to keep scientists accountable and the information as relative as possible for accuracy. Remember that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Martin Rees. Scientists are fully aware that as an expert and respectable scientist, adhering to this belief is critical to their success of being a part of the progression of human advancement. Although biases are a human flaw, the objective of any researcher and scientist is to be as critical and unbiased as possible.

Okay, so, let's take a look at which leading bodies of experts have to say;

IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer; a department of the World Health Organization with the primary role to direct international health within the United Nations' system and to lead partners in global health responses.

  • The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as POSSIBLY carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.The conclusion means that there COULD be some risk, and therefore WE NEED TO KEEP A CLOSE WATCH FOR A LINK THAT CURRENTLY DOESN’T EXIST BETWEEN CELL PHONES AND CANCER RISK. They are NOT saying "NO!", they are saying that at this current moment, with our understanding of frequency waves in relation to health effects and of the technology aspect of it, there is NO consistent and significant evidence (that is peer reviewed by a variety of scientific experts across the globe) showing that we are risking our lives for the purpose of technological advancement.

FDA - The Food And Drug Administration; is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

  • "The totality of the available scientific evidence continues NOT to support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radio-frequency energy exposure limits."

CDC - Center for Disease Control and Prevention; is the leading national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services

  • "At this time we do NOT have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects."

FC - The Federal Communications Commission; is an independent government organization that runs from the proceeds of regulatory fines in its regulation of radio, TV, wire and satellite communications.

  • "There is NO scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss."

NIH - The National Institute of Health; NIH is one of the world's foremost medical research centers. An agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the NIH is the Federal focal point for health and medical research, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency — making important discoveries that improve health and save lives.

  • "There is currently NO consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans."

To add another study into the conclusions of these experts, one they referred to, a study conducted simply tracking the annual rates of new brain cancers between 1999-2015 in the United States remained consistent, with no clear increase of any kind. Has there not been a clear and apparent increase in cell phone usage in our daily lives between that period of time? Based on that study alone, is there not a link missing, since we are supposed to have had increased brain cancers as a result? As far as my ability to analyze evidence goes, I'm not seeing a definite conclusion that IT IS bad.

Just like in investing for the future value of your dollar, see the future value in the belief system or theory you develop that shifts your perspective of something significant (5G for example). To believe it is bad implies a mistrust in one of 2 ways;

1- That companies are evil, paying off governments and scientific bodies of experts across the world to lie, or

2- That the scientific community at this day and age, year 2020, after everything we have accomplished, is so weak, and incapable of both objectively analyzing and criticizing evidence.

Everything is on the radioactive scale, yes even our body is naturally radioactive, and we are exposed to radio waves both natural and human made.The whole communication and tech sectors are moving forward, or at least would like to. I provided a list of scientific bodies and now here are some companies such as; Qualcomm, Verizon, Sprint, LG, Samsung, GOOGLE, Apple, Facebook, Tesla and the list goes on with names of companies that are working forward with a plan for the future of 5G.

So for those who say "YES it’s bad", you are not only opposing the academic scientific community, but also some of the biggest and brightest companies in the world calling them evil ignorant beings. Do you really believe that there are that many people at such high social-economic levels, to be so ignorant of the facts you claim are prevalent? Do you believe these human beings hate their children, their children' children, couldn’t care less for any of their futures, and just simply want to throw away their legacy they’ve worked so hard for, that they would WANT to just put everyone's lives at risk? If it was bad, and it was concluded that there is sufficient and significant evidence to link it to negative health consequences, why would these guys still continue to surround themselves with their own technology that is supposedly so harmful to humans? Are they not also humans with the same physical weaknesses? Are they simply rich suicidal evil beings?

I myself, am tired of all this mistrust because it doesn’t serve any objective purpose. I choose to see some value and integrity in the system we have, look at how far we’ve come. The more we work together with the system, the more we can strengthen it as a whole. We are an intelligent species, let us act as such. If you are one who believes there is a link, after everything I have demonstrated and provided, I hope to have sparked a different thought on 5G.


236 views0 comments


bottom of page