5G technology can improve public safety

The argument

Not only is 5G technology safe for humans, it can actually improve public safety. From healthcare to law enforcement, 5G technology can allow for swift communication that can save lives. For instance, Verizon has created augmented-reality glasses for police officers. These glasses would need the high speed connectivity of the 5G environment to work effectively, but if they were introduced into police departments, they would shift officer’s body cameras to their glasses. This shift would allow for constant surveillance of officer activity, as well as the ability for officers to receive orders and information through their glasses, so they wouldn’t have to look away from a potential suspect. 5G could create a safer policing environment for both officers and the general public. The medical field could also benefit from 5G technology. 5G can allow for applications that would give doctors quick and reliable access to patient files and information. Beyond this, telemedicine could become more accessible to people who may not have had the ability to reach their healthcare providers online before. Overall, 5G technology creates quicker and more accessible connectivity that could allow for more efficiency in the most important aspects of society.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Some would argue that the potential harm that 5G technology can cause to humans far outweighs the potential benefits it could have when it comes to the public safety. For instance, In Slovenia, the introduction of 5G technology has been stopped so the government can fully investigate its effects on public safety. Many people feel that the treat that 5G presents to humans is more serious and worthy of consideration than any potential benefits it may have for the general public.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Benefits are not evidence of safety, and this is where the argument goes wrong even though its conclusion is the well-supported one. That a network enables useful applications says nothing about whether its emissions affect health — a question answered by the physics of non-ionising radiation and by exposure research, neither of which the argument invokes. [Rejecting P2] The medical examples describe faster access to data rather than anything specific to this generation of network. Existing connections already support records access and telemedicine, so the premise overstates how much depends on 5G in particular. [Rejecting P3] Net social benefit and absence of health risk are separate claims, and joining them is what leaves the argument exposed to the objection that harms might outweigh benefits. The safety question is better answered directly — by the evidence on radiofrequency exposure — than by a list of applications.