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

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

#51

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

jcims wrote: post #45

Symmetry wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel it's pretty obviously per exposed tissue. It's not so much that your mass affects your resistance to it, but that the radiation needs a certain density to cook your hands.

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

#52

Post by mrtksn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

laHiesh1 wrote: post #48

mrtksn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, that's up to voters to decide. Maybe Brusellians don't mind some trash on the streets as much as new tech's potential hazards. It's not too long ago since establishing a link between cancer and EM Radiation[0].

You say that it's fashionable moral panic but some people may say that an increase in cancer is not worth fashionable network tech investment.

Just as you might think that this 5G thingy is a must have and totally safe, some people might think that 4G works just fine so let's not risk it.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355680

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

#53

Post by msla » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

door5 wrote: post #39

msla wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a lot of anti-cell phone radiation cranks, but to compare the research to anti-vaxxers is disingenuous. Mainstream publications have raised legitimate questions about it and the research is far from conclusive: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/health/cell-phones-cancer...

When it comes to scientific topics, we should read journals and, if possible, meta-analyses, not the popular press.

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

#54

Post by kalleboo » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

Jhsto wrote: post #50

kalleboo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

That's interesting to hear! Most of the hype in the media (and health concern fear mongering) seems to love to talk about mmWave, but I guess it's just indirection.

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

#55

Post by door5 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:19 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #53

door5 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of anti-cell phone radiation cranks, but to compare the research to anti-vaxxers is disingenuous. Mainstream publications have raised legitimate questions about it and the research is far from conclusive: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/health/cell-phones-cancer...

When it comes to scientific topics, we should read journals and, if possible, meta-analyses, not the popular press.

Both of those articles refer to journal articles if you are so inclined. My point is not that cell phone radiation is unsafe (it probably is safe), but that it's not an obviously resolved issue in the way that vaccine safety is.

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

#56

Post by zzzcpan » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:20 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.

That feature is just marketing, 30 GHz small cells need to be like within each room people live to be reliable.

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

#57

Post by mcguire » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

Jhsto wrote: post #50

kalleboo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

A tablet phone the size of a door, you say?

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

#58

Post by sosilkj » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

laHiesh1 wrote: post #48

mrtksn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"fashionable moral panic"

Would you be able to share some scientific research that supports the idea that the proposed antennas are completely, without-a-doubt safe? (I assume that's what you're implying by your statment.)

Edit: ok, forget that I used the words 'completely' and 'without-a-doubt' which causes a knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists here. How about just evidence in general that suggests that they're safe?

edit edit: my apology if the phrase 'knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists' rubbed anyone the wrong way. just being snarky but perhaps wasn't helpful to the conversation.

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

#59

Post by oneowl » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:38 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.

Yes. Telephone companies can do this. You are correct about it.

I don't have an answer to your question so I'm just speculating over here and it's quite possible that I'm wrong

I think as soon as that happens (someone shuts off a network) someone else will set up new networks to provide the old service.

Open source technologies exist to set up base stations right now [1]

I think we're headed towards an open spectrum future. Soon most communication could take place on unliscenced networks [2]. Or more and more networks could become unliscenced.

The G networks are not the only way to communicate. It is also important to note that the G networks are now simply internet enablers.

I don't have any data on this but I'd love a comparision of telephony and data services on use today. How much data people use in calling vs using Facebook for example?

Also consider that all telephony comapnies are betting big on IOT.How many IOT devices works on a G network?

If you have a modern device all you need is WiFi.

That however does not mean that telephone companies would cease to exist. Someone still has to provide infrastructure. They just won't have to spend so much on acquiring liscence s. Which also means more competition from unliscenced providers.

Device manufacturers would be able to work on a common network technology stack.

By the way I don't have anything against 5g. I also don't quite understand health implications so I'm unqalified to talk about it. But I don't like having to buy a new device just to use a new network.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBTS

[2]https://www.weforum.org/projects/internet-for-all

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

#60

Post by laHiesh1 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #52

laHiesh1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, that's up to voters to decide. Maybe Brusellians don't mind some trash on the streets as much as new tech's potential hazards. It's not too long ago since establishing a link between cancer and EM Radiation[0]. You say that it's fashionable moral panic but some people may say that an increase in cancer is not worth fashionable network tech investment. Just as you might think that this 5G thingy is a must have a…

People say a lot of things and people are not perfect, they are susceptible to bias and manipulation. So until someone provides some peer reviewed evidence showing that there is a causal link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis then I'm going to call it a moral panic.

On another note, I would be open to the possibility that Satan is real and is the cause behind cancer if and only if the proper evidence is provided.