Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 613 posts

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

#51

Post by avian »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #40

Bad headline. 5G covers a huge spectral range starting at, yes, 5 GHz. 5GHz is coming out of every home router built in the last couple years. If it was unsafe, we would probably know about it. (Let’s say ‘unsafe’ as in, “it is ‘unsafe’ to drive a car” since we need some baseline risk tolerance).

> If it was unsafe, we would probably know about it.

The article claims this is in fact the case. Quote:

"We are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation."

I've clicked a few cited papers and they are all behind a paywall, so I can't make my own opinion how justified this claim is.

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

#52

Post by OJFord »

keithnz wrote: post #28

well, I was curious about the New Zealand "researchers", first on the list Tracy Chandler, BSc (Hons) MBChB FRNZCGP FNZSCM, PGDipSEM, Cert Dermoscopy, Cert Homeopathy, MACNEM member. Homeopathy? ummm...red flag.... ok... maybe an anomaly.... who else from NZ?, huh, no one from any credible research org.

I assume you're North American and so upset mainly by the absence of an 'MD'. MBChB is an equivalent.

Having an additional 'Cert' in homeopathy would be like having a CS degree but also certifying in AWS or Azure products, for example, which wouldn't even necessarily say that I endorse them, perhaps just that I have clients that might like to see that certification.

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

#53

Post by mensetmanusman »

vfc1 wrote: post #13

> Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. I mean it can't be good all this radiation exposure. As far as I know, people living near large electrical wire high tension poles are at a higher risk of cancer already. I think so much can already be done with the network bandwidth we already have available. J…

The last question is interesting. Our eyes create an image with ~ 1 Gigapixel resolution at frame-rate equivalent > 120 Hz.

For real VR/AR, 5G is not fast enough, would have to work in the THz regime for wireless (wow, nature has a huge bandwidth requirement...). Interesting thing about THz is that most electronic materials breakdown and stop working.

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

#54

Post by lucideer »

_bz2r wrote: post #17
baybal2 wrote: post #3

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

For others (like me) to whom the name is unfamiliar: He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-stil... After reading his ideas, I think we should all feel a little lucky that Trump hasn't made hime the head of the FCC. edit: posting as primary reply, because the point is important, but was downvoted becaus…

Is it just me or are all the links people are posting in this thread to debunk this scientist from the same domain?

I hadn't heard of ACSH, so checked their about page:

> a pro-science consumer advocacy organization

A consumer advocacy org. Not a scientific research council, as —I would argue—their name highly implies.

Their about page also says:

> We do not represent any industry. We were created to be the science alternative to “news”

The top-3 links in the references section of their Wikipedia page that seem to contradict this line:

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/0...

- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-counci...

- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/magazine/obam...

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

#55

Post by markus92 »

Jonnax wrote: post #38

"However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research." This sounds like bullshit. What were there changes between 3G and LTE that would make it more dangerous? More efficient use of spectrum?

Different modulation techniques is the one they're claiming now. For some reason OFDM/CDMA is more dangerous than FM or amplitude modulation (AM) and there are huge biological differences, they claim.

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

#58

Post by nnq »

satanspastaroll wrote: post #35
jokoon wrote: post #20

I spend a lot of time in public transport, and on internet in general. I never paid for 3G or 4G on my smartphone. Only wifi. OSMAnd for maps, etc. 5G is also pretty bad for the environment (netflix, instagram, snapchat are also pretty awful). The amount of energy and resources you need to make all those electronic is gigantic, not to mention the lifespan of a smartphones is so short, smartphones vendors are now tryi…

>I can't understand that race towards higher bigger everything. I think it's called growth-economy. Solving things creates new exciting possibilities, which have problems that need solving. We're never satisfied, and that's a good thing. Otherwise we would've stayed in caves

> I think it's called growth-economy

More like "growth-economy with massive hidden externalized costs" - from the obvious like pollution and climate disruption, to subtle ones like economic pato-incentives that distort markets and prevent them from doing their jobs...

> Otherwise we would've stayed in caves

Yeah, but we're long past that state. A cave man can safely externalize stuff like recycling, and even most of food production to NATURE. We can't.

I love growth-economy per se, but our current brand of it is messed up, and markets don't seem to be good enough at pricing all the nasty externalities. We need to invent quickly some extra devices that price this stuff in at a global scale (doing it per country CAN'T work!) IF we want to keep our beloved growth-economy!

Otherwise we'll default to the crappy solutions of ducktape-enviro-socialism + state-capitalism + islands of "free" markets here and there, dragging ourselves through a new f dark age from war to war...

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

#60

Post by ehnto »

satanspastaroll wrote: post #35
jokoon wrote: post #20

I spend a lot of time in public transport, and on internet in general. I never paid for 3G or 4G on my smartphone. Only wifi. OSMAnd for maps, etc. 5G is also pretty bad for the environment (netflix, instagram, snapchat are also pretty awful). The amount of energy and resources you need to make all those electronic is gigantic, not to mention the lifespan of a smartphones is so short, smartphones vendors are now tryi…

>I can't understand that race towards higher bigger everything. I think it's called growth-economy. Solving things creates new exciting possibilities, which have problems that need solving. We're never satisfied, and that's a good thing. Otherwise we would've stayed in caves

We need to get smarter about the damage our progress does though. I am not saying we need to stop looking to better our lives. But the life we have now is at great cost to the environment and indeed our own species. The electronic gadget abundance specifically comes at a great human cost to those in third world countries. To say nothing of the environmental cost.
Post reply on HN