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

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

#71

Post by j16sdiz » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:57 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.

How about WHO factsheets? It is a "more long term study needed"

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagn...

> While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

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

#72

Post by mrtksn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

laHiesh1 wrote: post #60

mrtksn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s OK as long as you don’t stage a coup to install 5G network, launch a smear campaign to discredit public figures, create a violent terrorist organization, build a lair and orchestrate covert take over of the institutions that deal with the issue :)

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

#73

Post by fock » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

marios wrote: post #14

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.

4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. The spectrum is still shared, and the more devices are connected on the 4G bands, the less bandwith there is for each device. IMHO, 5G is not so much about speed as it is about latency and better handling of devices in high density areas. Regarding the speed aspect, keep in mind that most smartphones (which are the primary 4G connected devices) are not equipped wi…

But contrary to 3G, saturation of actual, human related client devices should be reached today. I agree that some mangling of frequency bands might be nice to accomodate for high-device densities (metro tunnels during rushhour are bad around here).

What I personally don't get about the whole 5G-craziness is why we (as a society made up of humans in contrast to consumers which fill the pockets of shareholders) need it? Today, we face a number of challenges which all result from our lifestyle requiring an unsustainable amount of ressources/releasing a massive amount of substances (be it fungicides (candida auris up front here recently), antibiotics or CO2).

Why do we "have to" go for artifical, industry-driven growth again, when we really should focus on increasing the efficiency (or even forgo implementation of ressource-using technology)? And 5G will entail a massive increase in power-consumption (more bandwith), the number of cell-"towers" [most frequencies applicable to WANs are already utilized – a lot of the promise of increased network performance now lays on microcells (e.g. every bus stop get's a basestation)] [1] and requirements on the network-clients (why stop at low-latency, if we can sell you 4K-video calls for your 8K-display...).

As for the "health effects": I believe that for classic networks the effects are negligible (though it's hard to reliably do studies on this. It's like with Dieselgate and the health issues...). What happens on the long term if you move around a city where every surveillance camera has a wideband (think radar and microwaves), 5-10W transmitter, beamforming that power to the receiving device unaware of any obstructions such as various bodyparts, which are definitely affected. I guess this is really something you should study (even industry agrees [2]). BEFORE DEPLOYMENT. Additionally the whole beamforming stuff with microwaves opens up really interesting possibilities: how about hacking your surveillance cameras+the basestation and then frying the eyes of some commuters sitting idly around. And with most of the devices operating completely on software and increasingly being single sourced, such stunts are becoming relatively easy to pull of.

[1] https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/power-consumption-5g-... - "sponsored by Cisco Juniper Qualcomm"

[2] https://www.infineon.com/dgdl/Infineon-Health%20Effects%20of...

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

#74

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

typon wrote: post #23

hannob wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have you also tried to blind-test standing beside one that's switched off and on? Because plenty of people say they can "feel" cellphone radiation (so-called electrosensitivity), yet noone has ever been able to show this under controlled scientific conditions. As soon as they don't know if the radiation is there they stop feeling it.

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...

That's not really the question though. If you have someone eat food contaminated with lead or mercury, they may not be able to taste the difference, but that doesn't mean it's harmless.

The question isn't whether you can immediately sense its presence, the question is the effects of sustained exposure.

And the fact that the placebo effect is a real thing doesn't really tell you that one way or the other.

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

#75

Post by mrtksn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #70

mrtksn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you about the fallacy, but what I really want to see is good evidence on the alleged health effects. I don't want to rely on the average voter's perception of risk at all.

Well, then you need to size the governance of an undemocratic country.

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

#76

Post by Someone1234 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:04 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…

> It's not too long ago since establishing a link between cancer and EM Radiation.

What's this a reference to? Last I read there was no established link between cancer and EM Radiation[0].

[0] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...

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

#77

Post by dvfjsdhgfv » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:06 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.

> And the equivalent idea applied to vaccines gets us measles outbreaks.

Not at all. Vaccines have been proved to work not even for decades but centuries, and they're extremely efficient. Moreover, as with all drugs, nobody denies there are risks and side effects, and that people from risk groups shouldn't take them. That's very far from a blatant "all non-ionizing EM radiation is 100% safe for humans" that some people believe. I myself am agnostic as I read studies supporting the views of both camps. Therefore I think the scientist who signed the above call have every reason to call for more research and global cooperation as to defining what safe really means.

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

#78

Post by mrtksn » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:08 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #76

mrtksn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's not too long ago since establishing a link between cancer and EM Radiation. What's this a reference to? Last I read there was no established link between cancer and EM Radiation[0]. [0] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...

It was on HN front page some time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355680

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

#79

Post by jnurmine » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

fock wrote: post #73

marios wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4G, just like 3G before it will get slower over time. The spectrum is still shared, and the more devices are connected on the 4G bands, the less bandwith there is for each device. IMHO, 5G is not so much about speed as it is about latency and better handling of devices in high density areas. Regarding the speed aspect, keep in mind that most smartphones (which are the primary 4G connected devices) are not equipped wi…

But contrary to 3G, saturation of actual, human related client devices should be reached today. I agree that some mangling of frequency bands might be nice to accomodate for high-device densities (metro tunnels during rushhour are bad around here). What I personally don't get about the whole 5G-craziness is why we (as a society made up of humans in contrast to consumers which fill the pockets of shareholders) need it…

With 5G latencies, you can remote control more things (like excavators). Which means less need for humans to be physically present, which means less transportation (read: cars), which means less pollution.

Looking at the bigger picture, and counting in energy savings innovations on the basestation/network level, and so on, it might not be a clear-cut "5G spends more energy".

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

#80

Post by Someone1234 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

sosilkj wrote: post #58

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.

"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 sugges…

> Would you be able to share some scientific research that supports the idea that the proposed antennas are completely, without-a-doubt safe?

Can you link to a scientific study that proves anything is completely safe? Ironically more money has been spent proving electromagnetic radiation and vaccines are safe than most naturally occurring substances, because the public is paranoid about those things/it is a "sexy" area of research.

They've literally put animals into cages and exposed them to 1000%+ levels of typical EM exposure, and still not witnessed this supposed cancer link. But science cannot say anything is "completely safe" because that isn't how logical reasoning or the scientific method work. All we can say is that a mechanism of unsafety has yet to be discovered.