People are actually arguing about dangers from the radiation (some of whom have been referenced by name in articles and comments on this site), and that’s what I and others here are addressing.

In fact, you yourself made that argument:

Although its nice to see that he acknowledges that the evidence is not conclusive as to whether or not males exposed to 5G radiation are more likely to have daughters rather than sons; or that children might be affected by said radiation

So, yeah. That’s a claim actually being made, not some strawman argument. Issues like being an eyesore, against local zoning laws, privacy concerns, concerns about citizens’ rights vs. corporate power, or ruining hillside views are completely separate issues that we are not addressing or disputing here. In fact, I think we all agree that most or all of those are valid, reasonable concerns to have on the issue of 5G deployment.

Also, none of us are saying that telecom doesn’t do any or all of of what you just said. However, none of that has to do with whether the radiation from the towers is safe or not, and that’s the only issue being argued about here. It is one of the very, very few issues where we don’t side against the telecom industry.

That guy in Australia you mention may have perfectly valid concerns, but we aren’t addressing his concerns. That is a completely different discussion from the one that we are actually having here. This is a discussion about actual disinformation being spread both by trolls and actual living, breathing human beings, some of whom are people that a lot of other actual humans respect and listen to, about health effects and safety of 5G, specifically the radiation.

I like your dance around ionizing v. non-ionizing radiation, but really, that is not the actual argument you are sperging.

When I mentioned “non-ionizing radiation”, it was part of a broader discussion about what potential dangers electromagnetic radiation could actually have. Low-frequency ultraviolet radiation and any EM radiation with a longer wavelength than ultraviolet is “non-ionizing”, so we don’t have to worry about the dangers unique to ionizing radiation. (Ionizing radiation is also the exception to the rule that shorter wavelengths = less penetration. It’s actually kinda the opposite, as shorter wavelengths on the ionizing part of the EM spectrum tend to be better at penetration; though they still don’t travel quite as far and lose energy quickly, they have so much energy that they still have enough to potentially cause damage even after losing some from penetrating a human body or something.) I was heading off potential counterarguments, that’s all.

For non-ionizing radiation (which 5G signals absolutely are), the rule of thumb is that longer wavelengths travel further and are better at penetrating through solid matter. In particular, around the microwave portion of the EM spectrum, there is a metaphorical line that divides non-ionizing radiation that can penetrate through human skin and that which gets blocked by human skin. 5G is around the microwave area, so it doesn’t travel very far and gets blocked by walls, floors, roofs, and human skin. As such, there is no reason to be concerned with the possibility of internal damage or health effects from 5G radiation. (Everything with longer wavelengths than 5G, which can travel pretty far and may be able to penetrate human skin, has been studied extensively to rule out any potential health risks, and none have been found. Really, any wavelengths long enough to penetrate human skin don’t really appear to have any significant effect on the human body at all.)

Null….wut?

“it still leans more towards the null hypothesis than not, and there is no strong reason to believe the results will differ from that”

Keyword "error".

Huh? I never said “error” there.

As for the null hypothesis, it’s basically the default assumption, which is something like “X doesn’t cause Y,” “X doesn’t correlate significantly with Y,” and/or “X has no significant connection with Y”. Scientists, researchers, engineers, and statistians often base a significant part of their conclusions on whether the data is sufficient to rule out the null hypothesis as a reasonable explanation for their observations. It’s basically the thing that can theoretically be disproven beyond a doubt but not 100% definitively proven beyond a doubt, at least from a logical standpoint. You can’t really prove a negative, after all.

If you wish to err on the side of probably most likely, ok, wut the heck, that’s your business.

I was just being careful with language. Most researchers and scientists almost never say things like “absolutely,” “100%,” “impossible,” “certain,” “always,” or “never” without an extremely overwhelming amount of evidence to support it, if then. They tend to be very careful with their words, which suggests more uncertainty on their part than what other people think they have. I’m the same way. Don’t read too much into it.

As for daughters, I can only say that girls rule, dude. Again, you are jousting your phony phallus at strawmen that you in-house trolls build yourselves.

Again, from your comment:

Although its nice to see that he acknowledges that the evidence is not conclusive as to whether or not males exposed to 5G radiation are more likely to have daughters rather than sons

“when men, who work in developing radar systems, have children, they tend to have daughters rather than sons”

I was responding to a specific argument that you made. I wasn’t putting words into anyone’s mouth. I said that to make clear that I have no concerns about a hypothetical 5G tower being on the roof of my house. I don’t consider that allegation about 5G’s potential effects on humans to be a valid concern in any sense, so that it may not have been explicitly and overwhelmingly disproven doesn’t weigh against my decision at all. Whether or not you, personally, actually believe that allegation to be true, the fact is that you brought it up first, so it was fair game for me to address it.

None of you have an actual Don Quixote bone in your body, because you are all i/o zombies.

Considering the fact that Don Quixote was the inspiration for the phrase “tilting at windmills” (an encounter that did not end well for him, to be blunt) and was legitimately delusional, I’m okay with not “hav[ing] an actual Don Quixote bone in [my] body.” Sure, he was brave and had pure, good intentions, and he was an idealist, but he was also delusional and foolish. I have no intention of tilting at windmills.