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

71–80 of 613 posts

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

#71

Post by pjc50 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #62
cjslep wrote: post #27

Radiation dosimetry is a combination of: * Frequency of radiation * Power of exposure * Duration of exposure * Where in the human body absorption is occurring While the effects of the latter three are pretty well understood for certain kinds of radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) ranging from "acute radiation sickness due to gamma burst" to "listening to the radio your whole life doesn't have a link to cancer", the…

> It comes down to a persons personal risk. [..] Wear a hat and sunscreen. What's the "hat and sunscreen" protection against millimeter wave cellphone towers, that someone else installed on their private property near you? I'm not yet convinced the risks exist. But conceptually if there was a danger, there's no "personal risk" argument. We're blanketing the whole area around a tower with millimeter wave/5G, a person…

Mostly the protection is the inverse square law. Provided you're not holding the device next to your head the exposure is tiny.

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

#72

Post by vidarh »

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…

> I mean it can't be good all this radiation exposure.

The light bulbs in your home spew out radiation. The heating of your home is all spewing out radiation. "Radiation exposure" is meaningless without considering whether or not radiation at a given wavelength will interact with your body in detrimental ways at the given power levels (of course, if you heat your home too much, or set fire to it, the infrared radiation/heat will kill you; but we don't for that reason conclude heat is inherently bad) or not.

Talking about "radiation exposure" without being specific about those things is as meaningless as suggesting eating is bad for you because some things are toxic.

Some radiation is very bad for you. Some is essential for you to some extent and dangerous for you if you get too much. Some just won't interact with your body in any way that matters.

> As far as I know, people living near large electrical wire high tension poles are at a higher risk of cancer already.

There is some very limited evidence that shows that strong electromagnetic fields may have some limited effect specifically for incidence rates of childhood Leukemia, but notably only at levels found at too few houses for the researchers to get a large enough sample size to be able to draw conclusions either way. In other words: We don't have any clear evidence of that. We have some research that may hint at some link under conditions to rare for us to have anything conclusive.

It's worth researching, because even a very minor increase in risk would have substantial long term effects, but it's not something that really has any relevance to the safety of 5G at all, any more than the fact that too much infrared radiation (heat) will burn you. They're different things.

[1] provides a detailed walk-through of different claims, sources of electromagnetic fields and radiation and what different studies say about this.

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

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

#73

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

LeonM wrote: post #45

With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (…

On the one hand, I think your conclusion is correct, but on the other hand, it took quite some time to establish the health risks of smoking. Because there were concerted disinformation campaigns etc.

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

#74

Post by notacoward »

nabla9 wrote: post #64
notacoward wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientists' appeal, including a list of signatories and their affiliations, isn't hard to find by following links. https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal Likewise for a list of relevant papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl... Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust? Columbia? Monash? McGill? Can we dispense with the tired ad hominems and ta…

Harvard Medical School is good institution but people on the list are not experts in the subject. Autism researchers etc.

Look at those goalposts go! Three minutes and already we have a new standard. Too bad it's still about the people and not the facts.

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

#76

Post by appleflaxen »

rahidz wrote: post #68
_bz2r wrote: post #23

For others (like me) to whom the name of the author (Joel Moskowitz) 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... The fact that this is in Scientific American, even in the Opinion section, is simultaneously a testament to the openmindedness of science, and quite sad. After reading his i…

To be fair, his views don't have enough of a pro-business bias to them for the current (or most) administrations. Speaking of a pro-business bias, the ACSH: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Sc...

fair enough.

it's a true statement, though, that conventional scientists and experts in EMF don't feel there is any real risk of these wavelengths.

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

#77

Post by verall »

OJFord wrote: post #52
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.

A cert in homeopathy would not be like certifying in AWS or Azure products. It would be like having a CS degree and then getting a cert in computer shamanism where you were trained in the proper chants and symbology to fix computers just by shouting at them.

Equating certifying in a stack or methodology like AWS or Azure with homeopathy lends it 1000X more credit than it deserves.

By all means certify in herbology or natural medicine but if you are a real (equivalent or otherwise) to a medical doctor and you certify in homeopathy you are legitimizing fake bullshit and you should be judged for it. Homeopathy preys on the sick and desperate and deserves no slack.

Maybe this seems overly harsh but people I care about have paid thousands for this bullshit and the smooth talking bullshit salesmen had way to much ""science"" on their side.

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

#78

Post by Synaesthesia »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #73
LeonM wrote: post #45

With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (…

On the one hand, I think your conclusion is correct, but on the other hand, it took quite some time to establish the health risks of smoking. Because there were concerted disinformation campaigns etc.

Not really, it was known to be harmful for a long time, whereas there’s no evidence yet that RF waves used by cellphones are harmful.

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

#79

Post by pas »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #73
LeonM wrote: post #45

With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (…

On the one hand, I think your conclusion is correct, but on the other hand, it took quite some time to establish the health risks of smoking. Because there were concerted disinformation campaigns etc.

It's not like smoking is subtle. Just ask any none smoker, or how people started with their first cigarette. Coughing, dry throat, WTF is happening, I've smoke in my lungs.

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

#80

Post by balfirevic »

notacoward wrote: post #74
nabla9 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard Medical School is good institution but people on the list are not experts in the subject. Autism researchers etc.

Look at those goalposts go! Three minutes and already we have a new standard. Too bad it's still about the people and not the facts.

> but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field
Post reply on HN