Dear doctor. Baum, as a dentist, you must, at least if you have completed your studies under the License to Practice Medicine for Dentists on January 26, 1955, have passed a preliminary scientific examination at the end of the second semester, and thus have demonstrated extensive knowledge in the natural sciences of physics, chemistry and zoology .
As part of your thesis, you also had to demonstrate that you are familiar with scientific methods and that you can apply them. You refute both in a downright ugly manner in your letter to the editor published on May 31. They pretend that the Age of Enlightenment never happened and that there are no natural sciences.
But first I ask you: Do you use a smartphone? Do you know its basic functions? Did you know that two terminal devices cannot communicate directly, but require the technical infrastructure provided by the provider, and the most prominent sign of this is the cellular antennas?
Next: There is no 5G “radiation”! You intend to very consciously associate it with ionizing radiation, especially natural radioactivity, but also of human origin, which is completely out of place here. Do you warn your patients against using ionizing x-rays, which you urgently need as a dentist for diagnostic purposes and to carry out certain treatments which have been scientifically proven to be harmless, at least when the usual doses are applied?
5G, on the other hand, describes a new cellular standard that offers a much faster data transfer rate (“bandwidth”) than all of its predecessors. 5G mobile communications also use electromagnetic waves, the physics of which have been famous since the work of Heinrich Hertz and Guglielmo Marconi.
Ultimately since the introduction of radio on October 29, 1923, they have been ubiquitous in Germany and accessible to basically everyone (radio, television, remote controls, bluetooth, etc.) – and have nothing to do with X-rays and other radiation, just their many power of ten because of the larger wavelength.
The harm that is often claimed to be caused by electromagnetic waves of normal field strength, including those intended for 5G, has not yet been reliably proven. Plus, it’s not the base station antennas that cause the user’s high field strength, but the ultimate device you hold close to your body! This in turn should send more force, less force and/or farther to the next base station.
Moreover, word must have reached the last ignorant person of Hintertupfingen that the transmission power used by the end device to transmit a certain amount of data is also smaller, the shorter that is required, i.e. the greater the bandwidth is the mobile communication standard.
Anyone who uses a mobile phone or whose vehicle depends, for example, on connectivity for autonomous driving or navigation, who is capable of reasoning, should therefore have an increased interest in a mobile communications standard with a high data rate, such as that offered by 5G having the closest possible coverage with base stations.
In conclusion, I have never seen a comparison like that of 5G and fiber optic cables. In your opinion, how long should the fibers that connect your smartphone to its infrastructure be?
On the other hand, the comparison you made and mocked with warning of railroad dangers is very accurate. Has anyone been directly affected since 1835 by the astonishing 30 km/h speed with which the “Eagle” was cruising on steam between Nuremberg and Fürth at that time?
In general, your letter ruthlessly reveals – again – that your intent is not information, but agitation in favor of your party’s crude ideology. Agitprop is what you call it for harnessing the junk in your party cart, right? You should be ashamed, especially of your declared scientific ignorance!