In a front page article on May 13th, the Times proclaimed (without evidence) that 5G was completely safe,
and that opponents were being unwittingly manipulated by the Russian government.
Why is the New York Times misleading people about 5G?
Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg (l) welcomes New York Times CEO Mark Thompson at a recent announcement of their 5G joint venture. The Times and its shareholders are counting on the success of 5G.
If the large body of scientific research on the health effects of RF microwave radiation was all coming from Russia, the Times might have a point. But it's not. The research is from the U. S. National Institutes of Health, Yale University, UCLA, the University of Kentucky and hundreds of other universities and research institutions in the United States and around the world.
So what could it be that is driving the Times?
Well, let's start with this...
America's big four telecoms are some of the biggest advertisers the New York Times has, responsible for frequent full-page advertisements that bring in millions of dollars of annual revenue. These advertisers are vital to the current survival of the Times. They also happen to be the companies that will profit most from the successful deployment of 5G infrastructure, and have the most money riding on its success. Widespread public acceptance of the massive deployment of antennas is required for the success of 5G.
But perhaps more importantly, the Times itself is betting on 5G. The company has committed to a 5G joint venture with Verizon to expand the possibilities of journalism, or "storytelling" as CEO Mark Thompson likes to call it. That's a laudable goal, but bear in mind that its success also depends on the successful deployment of hundreds of thousands of antennas all over the country.
To be very clear, the argument is not about 5G phones, as the Times suggests. Whether or not to purchase and use a 5G phone is a matter of personal choice. The real argument is about the right of private companies to involuntarily expose the public to a proven health risk by placing radiation-emitting antennas in close proximity to where people live and work. It's about forcing American families to endure 24/7 exposure with no escape, so that their neighbor can stream video all day or drive his car while reading the paper. That's the argument, and it's one for which the Times has no good response.
So before you decide whether to believe the "story" that the New York Times told on May 13th, please read the science for yourself. Then decide who is misleading whom.