Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

beta.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 129 posts

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#31

Post by revelation »

lgats wrote: post #26
sschueller wrote: post #4

I would be more worried about issues similar to the diesel gate scandal where manufacturers start forging radiation tests results. How much testing does the government do and how much is the industry self testing?

Hi, I'm no expert on the exact regulations, but I run fccid.io and have a pretty good idea of the process manufacturers go through. Although forgery of results would be possible, almost all testing is done by independent labs. It would be possible for the manufacturer to submit a "compliant" sample but then program the rest of the units to radiate differently. What I see most commonly are devices being sold without a…

What are we talking about, basic CE cert EMI testing or in depth RF radio certification? Most kickstarter projects or companies in general don't do own RF design, they buy fully certified modules.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#32

Post by icantdrive55 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.

https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/electr...

1. Go down to, "WHAT ARE THE FINDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PRE-APPRENTICE AND UTILITY WORKER STUDY?"

2. Read this, "“This study is a major new contribution and simultaneously provides evidence against an association with leukemia and for an association between magnetic fields and brain cancer. It does not, however, resolve the fundamental question of whether magnetic fields cause cancer."

3. PG&E will not just not say that it's all Safe. Why? Yes--probally over cautious lawyers. And it's still not settled completely yet?

4. Yes--this is focused on emf's, but if they aren't sure about the effects of magnetism--why assume they figured out the rest as fact?

5. I don't hold the phone to my head for extended periods. I'm o.k. with being called paranoid at this point.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#33

Post by Turing_Machine »

baobrien wrote: post #21
valuearb wrote: post #3

No discussion of sample sizes or P values? I convinced, I will refuse to stand within inches of a 5G base station for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off, for 10 hours a day.

Here's the preprint 'Report of Partial Findings' paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/23/055... As a non-biologist, the amount of power being exposed to the rats here seems pretty high - 0, 1.5, 3, and 6 watts absorbed per Kg of body mass. Also, if I'm reading this right, survival was very slightly lower in the control groups than any of the RF exposed groups.

6 watts absorbed per kg of body mass would be somewhere in the range of 500 watts for a human being, so, yes, very high -- that's around 5x the amount of energy normally produced as body heat. I would think that would be enough to produce severe stress just from the thermal effects.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#34

Post by BuuQu9hu »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.

Why don't you look up the hundreds of studies on effects of athermal non-ionizing radiation on _biological_ process and then use your limited imagination to consider the human dangers.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#35

Post by CyberDildonics »

pmontra wrote: post #22
thaumasiotes wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heat is not a frequency or a frequency range.

It's quite complicated. Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

I don't think the radiation heat transfer from microscopic bodies is the same as saying a human body emits infrared light on a macro scale.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#36

Post by davidmurdoch »

rdtsc wrote: post #29
davidmurdoch wrote: post #23

My grandfather, one of the engineers that worked with the Voyager I and II teams, died of throat cancer. From the late 90s up until his death in 2007 he was warning people about the potential harmful effects of cell phone radiation. He would only use corded phones. His throat cancer was thought to be caused, at least in part, by his increased exposure to radiation from the instruments he worked on while working for t…

> If anyone knows more about the specifics of what my grandfather, William Henry Fairing, Jr., was working on, that'd be so amazing to learn about! You probably thought about it, but wondering if you contacted your representative if they could do anything to help there. Stuff usually gets declassified after a time period, he might have not said anything but by now some of it might be not secret any more.

I haven't done it, actually. The only mention I have found on him online is a quick "thanks" in this PDF (mentioned as "Bill Fairing"): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dbf2/9a4eac990f8cfef7bcb781..., though I honestly haven't done much digging.

I'll look into it the representative route.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#37

Post by davidmurdoch »

rb808 wrote: post #27
davidmurdoch wrote: post #23

My grandfather, one of the engineers that worked with the Voyager I and II teams, died of throat cancer. From the late 90s up until his death in 2007 he was warning people about the potential harmful effects of cell phone radiation. He would only use corded phones. His throat cancer was thought to be caused, at least in part, by his increased exposure to radiation from the instruments he worked on while working for t…

> My mother told me he'd disappear for weeks at a time and he'd never talk about where he went or what he did. How good is this? Maybe I should try to get away with this in my regular job.

It didn't work out well for my grandparents. I don't think many relationships could make it through this much secrecy.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#38

Post by boooooo »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #35
pmontra wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite complicated. Interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

I don't think the radiation heat transfer from microscopic bodies is the same as saying a human body emits infrared light on a macro scale.

It does though, that's how infrared cameras work for one thing.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#39

Post by vvanders »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #33
baobrien wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the preprint 'Report of Partial Findings' paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/23/055... As a non-biologist, the amount of power being exposed to the rats here seems pretty high - 0, 1.5, 3, and 6 watts absorbed per Kg of body mass. Also, if I'm reading this right, survival was very slightly lower in the control groups than any of the RF exposed groups.

6 watts absorbed per kg of body mass would be somewhere in the range of 500 watts for a human being, so, yes, very high -- that's around 5x the amount of energy normally produced as body heat. I would think that would be enough to produce severe stress just from the thermal effects.

Holy crap, yeah you don't want to be near something dropping 500W ERP.

If I recall correctly most cell phones are on the order of 1-2W since more would tear through your battery.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#40

Post by userbinator »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #23

My grandfather, one of the engineers that worked with the Voyager I and II teams, died of throat cancer. From the late 90s up until his death in 2007 he was warning people about the potential harmful effects of cell phone radiation. He would only use corded phones. His throat cancer was thought to be caused, at least in part, by his increased exposure to radiation from the instruments he worked on while working for t…

Did he also smoke?

Keep in mind that AM radio has historically operated at very high power; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLW was broadcasting at 500kW(!) --- but to my knowlege, there has been no reports of increased health issues in the population around those areas, despite all that RF power causing lots of other very visible effects like turning various metal structures into ad-hoc radios.

Post reply on HN