“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

Apart from possible health effects, is anyone else concerned about 5G eventually being used for real-time CCTV surveillance networks with centralized facial recognition?

The higher bandwidth (up to 10 Gbps) and higher cell density should support quite a few simultaneous video feeds to a central government location.

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#8

Post by piker » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 11:16 AM UTC

markus92 wrote: post #5

karles wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point here?

He's been spreading arguably misleading information about this topic for ages.

> arguably misleading

Argue it then. Many readers will have never heard this name.

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#9

Post by vfc1 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 11:18 AM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #3

Check at the bottom > ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) > Joel M. Moskowitz

Anything about him worth mentioning? After a quick search online, at first glance, he looks like a reputable researcher.

Does he have industry ties that we should be aware of, reputation issues, conflicts of interest, something else?

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#10

Post by murgindrag » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 11:19 AM UTC

I'd be interested in seeing signatures from people at institutions I recognize and trust. There are a lot of people with degrees FROM credible institutions, but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field AT credible institutions.

It's not hard to find 250 wackos if you pull random scientists working in random fields at random institutions. Most have no better way to know safety of 5G than I do.

Now, there's obviously some frequency band where we get into health risks. 5G jumps us from single-digit GHz to double-digit -- I'd guess you'd have to go at least past visible light before you run into safety issues, at least barring extremely high levels of exposure. Intuitively, it seems to me like that ought to still be safe, but I'm no expert.

But an appeal to experts -- with no real experts behind it -- doesn't do it for me. Neither does an appeal to papers based on volume, without a clear description of what they found and how. Most science is junk science.