Live data from Hacker News

Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

brusselstimes.com

81–90 of 144 posts

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

#81
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I just need to separate questions of truth from questions of preference.

I am a proponent of representative democracy, of checks and balances, and of democratic institutions that carefully examine problems making good use of all the expertise available.

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

#82
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The one that shows exposure to EM radiation lengthens rat's lives, and that the older rats got more cancers..?

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

#83
"The Brussels region has particularly strict radiation standards for telecom applications. The standard of 6 volts per metre has already led to problems in the past with providing fast mobile internet via 4G in the capital."

On one hand, 6V/m seems like a lot; I haven't been able to find a reliable regulation site. On the other, 20V/m is apparently common (https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-r...).

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

#84
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.

Trash on the streets is fairly difficult to fix, without authoritarianism or major cultural change.

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

#85
post #45

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.

The limit is that no particular gram of your flesh can be exposed to more than 1.6W/kg.

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

#86
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, I just need to separate questions of truth from questions of preference. I am a proponent of representative democracy, of checks and balances, and of democratic institutions that carefully examine problems making good use of all the expertise available.

I think you should choose between not relying on average voters' perception of something and democracy because democracy is a popularity contest targeting the average voters who will choose their representatives according tho their perception of wildly diverse topics where even the best one cannot be well versed on more then few of those.

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

#87
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I'm open to the possibility they're not safe if and only if the proper evidence is provided. As it stands, no peer reviewed evidence has being provided to show that there is a casual link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis.

"Assume safety until shown otherwise" has not always been the best option in the past.

("Assume safety and viscously attack anyone who suggests otherwise" has some advantages, though.)

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

#88

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…

I’ll take trash and bad air quality over cancer.

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

#89
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I just need to separate questions of truth from questions of preference. I am a proponent of representative democracy, of checks and balances, and of democratic institutions that carefully examine problems making good use of all the expertise available.

I think you should choose between not relying on average voters' perception of something and democracy because democracy is a popularity contest targeting the average voters who will choose their representatives according tho their perception of wildly diverse topics where even the best one cannot be well versed on more then few of those.

That's exactly why the role of democratic representatives cannot simply be to reflect people's feelings on individual issues.

Representing people is a two way street. It also means for politicians to tell people the truth and to convince them of supporting the right thing having considered all the evidence, trade-offs and shared goals.

Democratic institutions have a lot of resources available to them and a lot of time that the average voter does not have. They should make use of those resources, not lazily ape voters and exploit possibly irrational fears.

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

#90
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

When all thy mercies, oh my progress...

I think you're a victim of the fallacy of eternal growth thaught for years by capitalist and communist economists alike (and even picked up by most green movements around the globe). If you realize that our consumption is way above it's sustainable limit, the only way to prove that we have really evolved from the barbarism of a pack of wolves is to try everything possible to fold back consumption into this limit.

And since we start crossing some irreversibility thresholds, this means acting now. So we should start cutting consumption and innovate existing technologies so that they become more efficient, instead of increasing consumption and hoping (which roots back to religion – it's kind of interesting that in a time of the decline of classic, philosophical religions, most of the people have adopted blind trust into technology, which does not recognise hardship or offer any consolence in it) for some random technological breakthrough (which would then need years to be adapted on scale – of course we can still search (R&D is not that big of a polluter (except for nukes))). I really would like to see some calculations for "the bigger picture", which show that 5G and the entailing consumption frenzy will bring us nearer to a sustainable society.

Practically for remote-controlled exvacators: why can't you just put a remote control-terminal ontop of the next fibre-"hub"? 5G (or at least the part, where you build small cells with high-frequency-bands) won't be deployed in Alaska anytime soon and this is something which you can easily add on todays infrastructure once you realize that it's actually beneficial. Maybe you should also take a step back on exvacation – with steel and concrete making up about 15% of carbon-dioxide emissions, I doubt that reducing transportation for construction workers (in industrialized countries, I doubt that any construction "worker" in China or Arabia has a car...) has anywhere near the same impact as a 5% reduction in construction.

Post reply on HN