The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Or, better yet, try not to form a viewpoint before evaluating all the evidence. Reminds me of an old saying (paraphrasing): "Sometimes a person's view of the world narrows and narrows until it becomes a point. And than he says 'this is my viewpoint'"
But there is evidence that radio broadcasting is devastating to your dental health! Listen:
In the 1800s and early 1900s, most people had fairly strong teeth, few cavities. Around 1920, radio broadcasters started popping up everywhere, and the average dental health dropped significantly, getting increasingly worse up until WW2.
During WW2, the German occupants confiscated all radio receives and closed down the transmitters. During the war years, we had almost no new dental cavities.
After the war, we got our receivers back, and radio listening rapidly rose, to an all-time-high sometime in the middle or late sixties. Dental health went the other way: In the 50s and 60s, it was so bad that some youth needed dentures before they were twenty years old.
In the late 1960s, TV gradually took over for radio; radio listening dropped significantly. And cavities dropped. Today, people essentially watch TV; radio listening is just for background music, and for car listening. Nowadays, people have stronger teeth than they had in the 1920s, thanks to the reduction in radio listening.
These observations can be fully supported by official statitics. Ther evidence is clear: Dental cavities are stongly correlated with amount of radio listening. So it is used a standard example used in statistics classes as an introduction to correlation.
Of course you also have have correlation with the availability of sugar, candy, sugared drinks, ..., and in the 1970s, fluoride toothpaste started making inroads. But let's keep it simple for now, we can look at those aspects later
Around here, they are deploying 5G in frequency bands used for plain GSM for twenty years, but are now released to 5G.
The tinfoil hatters were complaining when GSM came onto the scene that it was neither the band nor the signal strength that made it dangerous, but the digital signal being carried. That resulted in a different shape of the modulated beam. This shape was something new and probably causing cancer and headache and dental cavities. The effects never materialized, but maybe these new signal shapes resulting from 5G modulation are the ones causing a new pandemic that makes Corona look like a small cold.
Actually, we have seen a significant reduction of radiation levels the last few years. When I bough my first GSM, our city of approx 200,000 inhabitants had two base stations, up on mountaintops overlooking then entire town. I don't know the emitted power, but the signals covered a radius of at least 15 km. Today, the city is broken up into three or four hundred tiny cells: The downtown area, about 2 by 3 km, has more than 200 base stations alone, each covering maybe 100-200 m distance. So the emitted power is a small fraction of the early bases: They can't increase power, as it would interfer with the next cell reusing the same frequency.
The old base stations were omidirectional, spreading their radiation all over the landscape. Modern bases track the direction to the phone using the current time slot, and directs the energy that way. Ideally, no energy is wasted in other directions, no radiation. (Again, this is to reduce interference with other nearby cells on the same frequency.) This significantly reduces average radiation levels.
We will soon be using higher frequencies. The highest 4G frequcy used here is in the 2.1 GHz band; for 5G, the 3.5 GHz will also be used. As you go into those frequencies, there is very little use raising the transmission power - you are approaching "line of sight" frequencies. Signals are stopped by the first hill or concrete wall anyway. You might as well plan for tiny cells, which are coverered with very little power.
The greatest reduction in human-made radiation was FM turnoff, replacing it with DAB. The main broadcasting tower around here had three 60 kW transmitters for the main radio channels, two 20 kW for supplementary channels - 220 kW transmitted power for five channels. DAB reduced that to a single 20 kW transmitter for 14 channels. Furthermore, in areas where the signal level is too low, as supplementary transmitter is set up adding to the weak signal what is needed - it doesn't have to provide a full strenght signal by itself. In principle, DAB allows the entire country to be covered with a blanket of just slightly avove the minimum signal level, magnitudes below the level emitted by that 220 kW FM tower.
Certainly we are moving into a time when we will see a lot of radiation burns. Those are caused by radiation in the 400 to 700 nanometers range, not in the 10 centimeter range.
Of course it will. Software is not in everything right now, but it will be someday.
I was talking about "development" not just "software", obviously software will keep taking over. Which is kind of the point, there will be more demand (chance to save money) in making it easier to create.
A lofty but impossible goal.
I agree that specific example is likely impossible, but it won't stop us trying to get as close to that goal as we can though.
When you get recommendations from idiots then more idiots will buy it. The guy at Glastonbury claims "since plugging it in had felt beneficial effects, including being able to sleep through the night and having more dreams.". What's the betting it's plugged in to a PC that is powered off at night?