Other points: while excessive radiation is bad, below a certain point it is not harmful, and in fact is beneficial. There's some good reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model Most scientists today would say that below a threshold, there is no negative effect to radiation (or rather, you can't predict the effect in a stochastic way as a function of dose) and also that within certain regimes, radiation is beneficial (mutations leading to evolution).

> Most scientists today would say that below a threshold, there is no negative effect to radiation

Every time I was enticed to look up more about hormesis, I see the same issue: an intrinsically linear effect of a factor is studied, with a precise linear generator of the factor, but outside of the generator there is a background component to the factor which is ignored, which causes a misinterpretation of non-linearity.

A concrete example, suppose you have a light sensor in a "dark" enclosure, then at large enough intensities the current through the photodiode is linear with the incident illumination, but if there is some light leaking (or alternatively thermal radiation, and hence temperature, and hence dark current) then as the light generator is set to lower and lower levels, the light sensor will no longer linearly approach 0, since the signal starts to delve below the noise floor (so it will allways be measurable, but require more and more oversampling to decrease the noise floor). To confuse this effect which has nothing to do with photons getting converted to electron hole pairs, it is a misinterpretation to consider the effect "non-linear" close to the noise floor, and an even bigger misinterpretation to consider it "beneficial". Sure even high levels of ionizing radiation can be beneficial to the offspring of a colony of bacteria, fungi, or plants as a group, but it most certainly is harmful to the the individual bacteria, fungi or plants individually.

In the case of the light sensor, the current through the reverse biased photodiode will still be ideally linear with the total incident illumination, just no longer linear with the illumination of the non-dominant light source.

This effect is called hormesis - _some_ stress can be beneficial to health.

Humans kinda need sunlight to generate enough vitamin D. So if you live in a cave, that's not going to be good for you either. But sunlight causes cancer too, so what should you do?

I think it should be pretty obvious that we can't avoid radiation, and we were evolved to handle a certain amount of it.

Live in a cave and consume copious amounts of fish (oil)! Die of something other than cancer.

Really, complete bullshit for 100% of the population no questions asked? With all the wrong information Science has helped spread when it comes to Diet (example: eating fat makes you fat) is it really fair to say a study that says we need more studies is automatically bullshit?

Really, complete bullshit, just like "vaccines cause autism" or "MSG causes chinese restaurant syndrome". Do we need more studies to again disprove what already has been disproven? Bad bullshit science exists and "we need more studies" is its lifeline that keeps the gullible populace feeding it.

Oh and also. To make a scientific claim, you have to make a hypothesis. Not just a claim "5G causes cancer", but "5G causes cancer by this and this method". Without method of action best you can do is a corelational study, which is jus one step higher a case study, which is basically an anecdote.