Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now • Hacker News Board

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#41

Post by laHiesh1 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 1:49 PM UTC

swader99 wrote: post #8

_lbaq wrote: post #4

Wonder what this decision is baserad on, its non-ionized radiation and may confuse bees etc but humans ....?

Try sleeping for a week with your cell phone on airplane mode and your wifi unplugged. It certainly won't kill you but it causes oxidative stress on your cells. 5G just ups the intensity to 11.

This is a prime example of confirmation bias, you think it's having a positive effect therefore it's having a positive effect. It's a sugar pill.

This nonsense is no better than anti-vax parents that believe because two kids at her children's school were diagnosed with autism and had vaccines that it must mean vaccines cause autism.

If you're going to make claims like this, at least provide some evidence otherwise it's not constructive to make such claims.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#42

Post by tapland » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 1:50 PM UTC

oneowl wrote: post #13

xchip wrote: post #2

I live in Brussels, internet over 4G works great and nobody complains about it being slow. I am willing to change my mind if somebody proves why we need to upgrade but (and as much as I love new tech) "if ain't broken dont touch it", if anything just make it cheaper.

Its a good point plus upgrading to 5g will require purchasing new smartphones so it can be quite a costly affair for the consumer.

They will discontinue all the older networks? I can run my new device from this year old good old 2G if I want to. I don't think you are correct in this.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#43

Post by mrtksn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

DataWorker wrote: post #33

typon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to the studies done on infrasound, which seems to bother residents living near wind farms. The studies show that the biggest indicator of whether you're affected by infrasound is if you're told there is infrasound being emitted...

Studies show eggs are healthy. Now studies say they aren’t. Science is difficult and often gets impacted by market forces. Perhaps this is even more of a concern with psychological research such as the studies you are referring to.

That's not the case.

The problem here is that the media wants simplistic answers as "healthy or not healthy" but studies don't have such conclusions. What studies find out is "eggs increase X and decrease the probability of Y happening". This is not about science being difficult but an understanding of the outcomes being difficult.

This is also how some people try to discredit science. For example, I was highly irritated by Dilbert's creator's argument on defending Trump's climate policies, he said something about swimming after eating previously deemed hazardous but now declared safe, therefore you can't trust experts.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#44

Post by FakeComments » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #38

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so? I checked the link in the petition: https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal There are plenty of scientists asking for more testing and international coordination regarding the guidelines as to what EM levels and frequencies can be considered "safe" for humans. Given he fact that our activity in these areas constantly increases, it is a prudent approach, even if you could call it conservative.…

And the equivalent idea applied to vaccines gets us measles outbreaks. Anyone can "Just Ask Questions" about anything: You don't need to know anything, you don't need to have a coherent theory of your own, you just need to bury the people trying to do something in questions which can be answered by a simple review of what's already known.

The problem is that I haven’t seen safety studies, and the null hypothesis is that a technology is mildly unsafe: most of the neat science technologies have been.

The reasoning of “its not ionizing radiation so it can’t possibly impact biological systems at continuous low, structured doses!” wouldn’t pass in an advanced high school class — so it’s deeply concerning that’s what underlies the safety of a widespread technology.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#45

Post by jcims » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #37

xchip wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the paper that is true but still the FCC seems to have some concerns + https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-he... + https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-fr...

Those guidelines are all about the heating effects of microwave radiation on flesh, the same way that an animal placed in a microwave oven would be injured or killed. And the FCC has established a limit for exposure of 1.6 W/kg where we can be sure that you aren't anywhere near having parts of you cooked. Sufficiently intense microwave exposure can be a health hazard but there's nothing subtle about it, like there is…

Is that 1.6W per kg of exposed tissue or for the whole critter (e.g. 160W for a 100kg manbeast)?

I put my hand on an antenna coupling plate for one of those through the glass CB antennas, and keyed the mic. This CB transmitted at 4W. It truly felt like someone heated the tip of a dagger and stabbed the palm of my hand with it. Unbelievably painful.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#46

Post by typon » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

DataWorker wrote: post #33

typon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to the studies done on infrasound, which seems to bother residents living near wind farms. The studies show that the biggest indicator of whether you're affected by infrasound is if you're told there is infrasound being emitted...

Studies show eggs are healthy. Now studies say they aren’t. Science is difficult and often gets impacted by market forces. Perhaps this is even more of a concern with psychological research such as the studies you are referring to.

If you can't reproduce something through randomized control trials, then you should at the very least be very skeptical about it and not pass legislation purely based on people's views.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#47

Post by squarefoot » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

Someone should tell politicians about how radio waves propagate and the inverse square law: the cellphone kept in their pocket, very often more than one, expose them to a lot stronger EM fields than any tower they might have nearby. Or maybe they already know that, but banning or imposing restrictions on cellphones would destroy their careers.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#48

Post by laHiesh1 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #40

holografix wrote: post #32

Having lived in Brussels for a year now and witnessing sidewalks covered in trash and bad air quality I’m quite cynical of politicians waxing lyrical about protecting their constituent’s health. I think the last paragraph in that article holds more weight. “Last week, the various governments in Belgium once again failed to reach agreement on the auctioning of the 5G licences. The file remains stuck on the distributio…

This sounds like a fallacy. Should they also allow asbestos because the sidewalks are covered in trash anyway?

No, but it seems like they might be neglecting issues that are affecting their constituents health (potentially easy to fix by the sounds of it) and focusing on the current fashionable moral panic.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#49

Post by wtallis » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

tapland wrote: post #42

oneowl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a good point plus upgrading to 5g will require purchasing new smartphones so it can be quite a costly affair for the consumer.

They will discontinue all the older networks? I can run my new device from this year old good old 2G if I want to. I don't think you are correct in this.

Who still operates 2G networks? It's not at all profitable to use such spectrum-inefficient tech in any area that has enough density of customers to warrant running a cell tower in the first place. 3G networks are starting to be phased out already, because upgrading radios is cheaper than acquiring spectrum that's currently allocated to incumbent non-cellular uses—and holdouts running obsolete phones aren't numerous enough to worry carriers.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#50

Post by Jhsto » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #30

oneowl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. You are correct but that will happen again with 5G and then with 6G and so on. After a period all networks will saturate. I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I think one solution could be to increase the network density with the deployment of small cell networks that provide a better local coverage and bandwitdh. A few companies like nokia [1] and ericsson…

One of the features of 5G is support for high-frequency (30 GHz+), high-bandwidth, small cell networks. Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type.

> Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type.

I am a software researcher in the field and I do not think this is the case. Most 5G deployments for the foreseeable future will be on 3.5Ghz. I do not think mmWave (30Ghz+) has been accepted for commercial use in any country. In fact, in many roadmaps mmWave is referred to as 5G NR (new radio), which to my understanding was left for later deployments. To give you an idea why: the mmWave receivers and transmitters (at my current facility) are the size of a door. I think the problem is shrinking those doors to fit your smartphone, but then again, I do not work on the physical layer nor have much insight regarding regulations.