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

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#91

Post by piker »

KaiserPro wrote: post #84

"It’s unclear how many smaller base stations would be needed for 5G service. But it’s widely believed that there would need to be exponentially more because of the limited distance the signals can travel" Lets unpack this: 1) there is and has been lots of modelling to work out if the frequency bands are viable for business. 2) Where on the exponential curve is it? double? Quadruple? don't use terms that one clearly d…

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz.

Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#92

Post by scarlac »

dash2 wrote: post #79

"Why, for instance, did only male rats show increased tumor rates, and not females?" Hmm, was this pre-registered? Wee bit p-hacking? I can't find the answer in the paper. Hmm, though I did find this interesting nugget: "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of 23 males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR." Anyone want to venture a post hoc explanation?

> Anyone want to venture a post hoc explanation?

The results are too weak and they're searching too hard for results. That's not to say the study itself is "wrong" just that they're motivated to find an issue to get published and media coverage, not to say "oh, it's fine".

The entire article can be summed up with the quote:

> Final results from the peer-reviewed study won't be released until at least the end of 2017.

Cellphone cancer studies are not in short supply. What we need is peer-reviewed reproducible studies.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#93

Post by TeMPOraL »

kobeya wrote: post #87
keenerd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microwaves aren’t RF. Yes they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission > The frequency has a very specific interaction with water. No it doesn't: http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/10/15/why-are-the-microwave...

Your link takes an award for missing the point. There is a resonant frequency of liquid water in the microwave range which is why tabletop microwaves use that range. They don’t emit a single frequency, no, but I don’t know anyone who claims they do...

You literally just wrote microwaves aren't radio frequencies, which is wrong by the very definitions of "microwave" and "radio frequency".

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#94

Post by lloeki »

piker wrote: post #91
KaiserPro wrote: post #84

"It’s unclear how many smaller base stations would be needed for 5G service. But it’s widely believed that there would need to be exponentially more because of the limited distance the signals can travel" Lets unpack this: 1) there is and has been lots of modelling to work out if the frequency bands are viable for business. 2) Where on the exponential curve is it? double? Quadruple? don't use terms that one clearly d…

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz. Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

    $ /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Apple80211.framework/Versions/A/Resources/airport -s | wc -l
    31
I have no choice but to bathe in 2.4GHz (out of 30, two are 5.GHz).

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#95

Post by red75prime »

dash2 wrote: post #79

"Why, for instance, did only male rats show increased tumor rates, and not females?" Hmm, was this pre-registered? Wee bit p-hacking? I can't find the answer in the paper. Hmm, though I did find this interesting nugget: "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of 23 males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR." Anyone want to venture a post hoc explanation?

Thermoregulation reduced metabolic rate thanks to additional thermal energy input, leading to slightly higher lifespans? Pure unfounded speculation, of course.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#96

Post by TeMPOraL »

gambiting wrote: post #81
tonmoy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe from cooking meat?

People actually cook things in microwaves? As in - they go from raw product to a cooked product? I've only ever used and only ever saw microwaves bring used for warming up meals, never for actual cooking.

For some reason the concept doesn't seem popular in many parts of the world, to the point that people don't even realize you could use a microwave to cook things[0]. But it can be, and people do. I even stumbled upon a cookbook once, that was entirely dedicated to cooking in microwave. Very interesting and insightful read. Microwave is a different beast than ovens and stoves, but if you appreciate its nature, it turns out you can do quite a lot of cooking with it.

--

[0] - This is a funny thought pattern failure that's common for people, and I don't know the better name than "acute lack of problem-solving abilities" for it. I mean, people should realize that cooking happens through heat, and microwave adds heat into a product, hence it can technically be used to cook...

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#97

Post by TeMPOraL »

lloeki wrote: post #94
piker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz. Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

$ /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Apple80211.framework/Versions/A/Resources/airport -s | wc -l 31 I have no choice but to bathe in 2.4GHz (out of 30, two are 5.GHz).

Bluetooth and other stuff work on 2.4GHz too.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#98

Post by TeMPOraL »

piker wrote: post #91
KaiserPro wrote: post #84

"It’s unclear how many smaller base stations would be needed for 5G service. But it’s widely believed that there would need to be exponentially more because of the limited distance the signals can travel" Lets unpack this: 1) there is and has been lots of modelling to work out if the frequency bands are viable for business. 2) Where on the exponential curve is it? double? Quadruple? don't use terms that one clearly d…

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz. Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

I'm conflicted about this, because on the one hand, people should have a choice about things that happen to them. On the other hand, if you let them, you get things like this, or anti-vaccination movements. What can one do?

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#99

Post by pasta »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #98
piker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz. Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

I'm conflicted about this, because on the one hand, people should have a choice about things that happen to them. On the other hand, if you let them, you get things like this, or anti-vaccination movements. What can one do?

Anti-vac is a public issue.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#100

Post by robbiep »

thesz wrote: post #82
robbiep wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to interference with DNA, it is wavelength not wattage that is important.

In theory, yes. In practice, wattage can disrupt tissue around, introducing radicals, etc. Dirupting DNA in the end.

The best reply to this is that we both generate a lot of radiant energy and are exposed to a lot of radiant energy in the form of sun, orders of magnitude stronger than the transmitters in our phone. The intensities the mechanism demands are neither likely or possible for everyday use
Post reply on HN