Switching 5G to 4G, frequencies are giving me health problems

Which health problem do you have?

Home wifi is 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz, 3G, 4G and 5G are for cellphone and Fizz doesn't support 5G yet.

That being said, follow @Mike instructions to disable 5Ghz, you might even be able to disable 2.4Ghz if all your devices are wired (or get a router that does and put the modem in bridge mode).

take good care of yourself! Good luck

There is no such thing as 4G and 5G for home internet. 4g/5G is ONLY related to mobile phones.

Hope everything goes better.

Have a nice day everyone!

Youboi making a lot of points here.

Because i'm here for the points

That sounds more like placebo than anything.

This is not a placebo. It's a nocebo.

If you are talking about Wi-Fi 5G as in home Internet, then please don't disable it. It's been around for a decade and is far less crowded than 2.4GHz spectrum which is the older standard.

I've attached an image of typical 2.4GHz spectrum in an urban environment. It's a mess.

In comparison, 5GHz is relatively uncrowded, and allows for much faster speeds with less interference and therefore fewer retransmissions. The total energy output is typically less.

If you are talking about 5G used by mobile phones, be aware that those frequencies attenuate (travel less far) than the earlier ones. So if you are concerned about exposure levels, you still want to use 5G.

And Google: nocebo.

Are you saying that it's impossible that 5G impacts someone's health in any way?

I did not even think 5G was available in Canada, at least not hardware wise?

It might be a neighbor too. Everyone has router nowadays. You are not out of problem of it's really a 5ghz issue.

I would like to start this, by saying @pierrealarie, I'm sorry that so many people have dismissed this as psychosomatic, and have not given you any legitimacy. It's easy for people to say "you're crazy", that it's a nocebo effect, that 'radio waves have been around for a long time', and that 'non-ionizing radiation is harmless'.

One thing I would like everyone to note, is that the FDA uses RF radiation in MUCH smaller power densities than is the current background levels in cities, and much, much lower than the levels we are subjected to on a daily basis by WiFi in our homes, and by our devices.

One of the notable things to mention, is that, WiFi, for example, at night, sends a strong beacon every couple hundred milliseconds of a very short duration (most likely in nano or pico second range although this information has changed with every new technology and I do not know the current technologies' duration of pulsed frequency). When the FCC, and other governing bodies do studies, they are looking for the thermal threshold of transmission power, and when they do, they use the average power density, not the peak the levels. It's been determined (through thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies that even VERY low RF levels have biological effects on cellular, bacterial, animal, and human life. There is no consensus on WHAT these levels are, or even if there exists a level below which there are no adverse biological effects, however it has been shown that there is a big difference between analogue and digital 'pulsed' signals. The planet is full of natural background EFs EMFs and RFs, however, none of them have the sine waves of today's technology, and none of them are pulsed at tens, hundreds, or thousands of times a second at levels that are thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of times higher than what is natural.

I want you to think again, about the fact that the FDA has approved RFs to treat illness in very low doses. Now, if RF has NO biological effects, at doses much larger, then why is it used in the treatment of illnesses?

For anyone looking for concrete scientific data on this, please download this document from the FCC:  https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916152038359/BioInitiativeReport2012 (Sections 1-8 of 24).pdf

The BioInitiative Report 2012 is a highly referenced, highly credible document that provides concrete scientific data, and not conjecture to make claims on ELF and EMR and their biological effects. While the document linked is 482 pages, it is only the first of 8 sections out of 24, so you would have to search out the rest for yourself, as I am certain that if you are interested enough to read through 482 pages of scientific material, that you can find the other sections.

Another good read would be the book The Invisible Rainbow. You can find it on Amazon, or most reputable bookstores.

I just want to end on this: electrosensitivity is a real thing. It is not a nocebo effect, nor the imaginings of a hypochondriac. While, there are certainly those who make their symptoms worse through the nocebo effect (or create them entirely), there are those that create every real disease known to man through to nocebo effect. I do believe that it is important not to worry unnecessarily about such things moreso than we can make actionable change about, however, denial nor dismissal is neither a humane nor reasonable approach when turning to such subjects, as there are those among us who suffer severely because of electrosensitivity, and I strongly believe that any such endeavor into the medical and scientific literature of these subjects, dating back to the 1880s with the electrification of the planet, you will find that these are not isolated, invented, nor exaggerated cases.

One must wonder why mental illness such as anxiety, depression, and maladies such as insomnia, exhaustion, burnout, mental fog, etc. seem to permeate our society when not a few generations ago, these labels would be relegated to the very, very few of society that indeed did have mental disorders.

We have turned from avoiding anything 'external' and medically, have looked for only the 'internal'. Is it not possible that what is able to transmit a movie, wirelessly, while driving in another country, on the Interstate, instantly, something that not only 20 years ago most likely looked like a potentially 12-24 hour project with the phone line tied up constantly (unless you were fortunate enough to have enough money to have two phone lines), after which point you would have a terribly pixelated movie that most likely was filmed in theatre, with horrible contrast. Now... in a minute or so we can have a high definition version of that movie downloaded almost anywhere in the world. But no biological effects, because non-ionizing?

I thank those who have read until here, and I hope you have read with an open mind. I truly inquire that you read The BioInitiative Report 2012, before saying this is a bunch of people who need to be on medication spurting misinformation.

Thank you for being open-minded, and thank you for your time.

Best,

Shao