I looked at some trial 5G gNB; you definitely feel nauseated if u r standing near these units. This will be a concern.
Was this documented during a test or just anecdata?
This sort of thing happens quite a bit actually. In this case, a huge number of residents complained ofvarious illnesses that were supposed to have been caused by a new tower being built in their vicinity. That the symptoms were presented when the tower was not operational is fairly telling that nocebo effect dominates here over any rational or explainable occurrence.
That being said, it does, as 32032141 suggests, tell a fair amount about nocebo effects.
implies that it was documented during a test
The problem here is that the media wants simplistic answers as "healthy or not healthy" but studies don't have such conclusions. What studies find out is "eggs increase X and decrease the probability of Y happening". This is not about science being difficult but an understanding of the outcomes being difficult.
This is also how some people try to discredit science. For example, I was highly irritated by Dilbert's creator's argument on defending Trump's climate policies, he said something about swimming after eating previously deemed hazardous but now declared safe, therefore you can't trust experts.
The question isn't whether you can immediately sense its presence, the question is the effects of sustained exposure.
And the fact that the placebo effect is a real thing doesn't really tell you that one way or the other.
By standing next to the tower. That is a known effect from high power radio transmitters. You can feel that because it's starting to cook you the same way a microwave oven does, to varying degrees depending on the transmitter power. If you stand too close to a large military RADAR transmitter it can kill you dead on the spot.
Then the response is referring to studies done at the power levels of an individual cell phone, and no surprise it's difficult to feel that. But the effects of long term exposure are a different matter.
Moreover, with 5G they're increasing the density of the towers, which implies building towers with closer proximity to people.
There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger.
[0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc
The truth is this is very hard to measure. You have something that happens over a period of years and is difficult to control for. How do you find a group of people in modern times who haven't used cell phones in the last decade, but at the same time are not a group of monks or Amish people with so many other lifestyle differences that everything is hopelessly confounded?
Being hard to measure isn't the same as not existing. The question is, what choice do you make when it's hard to get good information? Build a lot more radio transmitters that may or may not be a major contributor to the modern trend of increasing cancer rates, or prefer wired networks that don't?
This just tells me you're looking for conspiracy and distrust.
To comment implying that there's no way to measure, you definitely can. You look at cancer rates over time (we have that data). You also look to see if there are correlations with growth in areas where cell phone usage increased faster than in areas that were slow to adopt (this even happens in America, and we have this data). For example, New York more quickly adopted cell phones (and other radio technology) than Montana.
Just because you can't figure out how to measure something doesn't mean it isn't an already well established practice that has been verified through many different studies. Many different disciplines use this method as well. The nice thing about this method is that it is also easy to test to see if researchers are p-hacking or doing other types of data manipulation that one would expect if there was a conspiracy going on.
Industry funded research, for all industries, is inherently unreliable because they get to choose whether to publish it after they've seen the results. This is not a conspiracy, it's just what actually happens. They're generally not going to publish a finding that hurts their business or exposes them to litigation.
And then you're here: https://xkcd.com/882/
> You look at cancer rates over time (we have that data). You also look to see if there are correlations with growth in areas where cell phone usage increased faster than in areas that were slow to adopt (this even happens in America, and we have this data). For example, New York more quickly adopted cell phones (and other radio technology) than Montana.
At which point you're back to different lifestyles and many confounders.
Worse, availability of mobile phones affects human behavior directly, so you have to somehow account for the consequences of those behavioral changes that directly correlate with mobile usage.
Also this: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Doing this properly is hard. So hard that people generally screw it up at least a little bit. Then we get studies showing both positive and negative results, but they're all flawed in at least minor ways so everybody gets to point to the flaws in the studies whose result they didn't like.
See also: Replication crisis.
In practice the result is that we don't actually know the answer, so the question is what we should do when we're not sure.
Also you're confounding the experiment. You can't do this just over New York and Montana. You do it over a lot of places. Over many countries. Plus we have other ways to test this. You can look to see if radio waves heat tissue. The fact is cell phone radiation (radio waves) are non-ionizing and unless you turn the power WAY WAY up, it isn't dangerous. Both these methods are well established and we know what we're doing. So after just these two (there's been others) we have two experiments that match our current theory.
I want to repeat that. Experiments are fitting our theory. Not hypothesis. Theory. We've been studying electromagnetism for a long time. We've been studying radio for a long time. The data is matching well established theories.
This is completely different than your jellybean case because that doesn't match any good hypothesis. There's no underlining reasoning for why only a green jellybean causes acne. That doesn't deny the jellybean correlation, but that's all it is at that point. Correlation. Which is different than causation. To graduate to causation (which is actually the thing being pointed out in that xkcd) you need to give reasoning. There are plenty of things that correlate that don't cause. [0] That's where theory comes in. But if you can't establish a good link, then you just have [0] and people laughing at you.
Tldr: go talk to scientists.
tldrr: you aren't smarter than domain experts (in their domain)
tldrrr: don't shout replication crisis when the issue we're talking about has been replicated with similar results with multile well established methods.
How would you know if it’s just in your head?
Please don't say "just" in your head. It's implying that psychological conditions aren't as significant or real as physical ones. They are very real and need to be treated just like anything else.
I monitor my muscle spasms (and the rest of my body for that matter) fairly closely. The spasms don't happen often, maybe once a month or two (at most? Not sure... it's rare..) if I'm not carrying a cell in pocket with the data connection on.
The muscles in your legs that are effected, are they biological muscles? Your legs aren't the artificial limbs your username is referring to, are they? Your story is much more plausible if your legs are artificial.