I agreed that artificial or even natural levels of EMF of any frequency could possibly cause biological effects. Some are known, some aren't. I object to the term 'non-native EMF' or other such terms that there's some sort of distinction between natural photons and unnatural ones.
I'm fine with the term non native EMF. It means man made EMF ie not sun light, schuman, etc. I think most people understand this. Also there can well be differences even in the same type of photons, polarization, frequencies they arrive at (flicker).
At one point my vision was messed up where almost anything that was slightly bright hurt my eyes and left a significant after glow. I could only stare at my computer screen for small amount of time in between breaks as it hurt my eyes. I even installed software to read aloud text so I wouldn't have to look at screen. This reduced massively when I changed my screen to non flicker. Bit of a tangent but also maybe useful to someone.
I'd also disagree with claiming that the levels of red and blue light are 'finely balanced in nature'. The levels in nature are whatever they happen to be, constant or random. We are the ones that have adapted to the existing levels. If Earth orbited an m-class star and had a different atmosphere, we might be arguing about the importance of infra-red and green light, and ultra-violet might not even reach the surface. Parts of natural human habitat varies in its spectrum too: mountaintops vs sea level, cloudy vs clear sky, tropic vs polar, winter vs summer. Some people are noticeably affected by those differences; others aren't.
First part of this we agree, when I say finely balanced in nature, I don't mean nature has gone out of its way to make it so, I mean the human body and all the things we where before that have balanced and tweaked theere systems to take advantage of this and if we go changing the light levels significantly it could mess up this balance.
The second part I agree with. Actually quite interesting as on another forum somebody brought up in relation to autoimmunity, vitamin A and the color of eyes. More blue eyes further from equator, more blue light further from equator, blue eyes change the blue light/other colors that come in some how? blue light reacts with A in eyes. Could there be a link with blue eyes, and those who find Vit A worsens autoimmunity?
I accept that it's possible that 2.4 GHz, for example, has a significant biological effect at some level below 'cooking flesh'. The problem is that no one has been able to determine what level causes harm. The uses of EMFs do have significant benefits for human society. A lot of lives have been saved because we allow radio communication. Should we ban all EMF emissions because no one can prove that mW levels of 2.4 GHz has absolutely zero probablility of causing health harm?
I don't think we should ban EMFs I think we should be way more cautious about there usage, and look for alternatives that might not be as harmful if they are proven to be so. I mean, isn't it a bit reckless to have smart meters/TVs, 10+ wireless gadgets per home, phone masts on top of schools, wifi at all locations it schools, constantly chasing the next level of G despite there being no time to properly come up with safety testing.
Do you think 5g will have been properly tested by the time its unleashed? Of course not, it might take decades for the effects to visibly manifest.
Why do schools
need to be wifi everywhere? Whats wrong with keeping with ethernet until we can be sure?
Why is the government forcing smart meters on everyone. For the last year straight I have had URGENT PLEASE OPEN letters through my door saying they need to send someone around for my meter. It turns out that there is very little saving for the consumer for smart meter usage but big big money to be made in selling the data it retrieve from your habits. I'd say this is massively reckless behavior on a technology that safety is still undecided in the literature.
It doesn't have to be black or white, ban all emfs. I would like it so that the public opinion shifts from emfs cant cause anyone biological harm and those that think so are tin foil hat loonies, and to, well there might be some harm, we should be cautious, and recognizing that wireless tech /cell companies have billions of dollars riding on this. I think they have absolute sway over the government/media/scientifc research with that sort of cash.