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

81–90 of 613 posts

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

#81

Post by londons_explore »

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…

A hat and sunscreen does offer some protection against millimeter wave radiation - the had will block some (smallish but non-zero) percentage of the radiation, as will the sunscreen as long as you apply a thick layer.

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

#82

Post by pas »

notacoward wrote: post #69
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?

From TFA: "Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure." "The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves ... 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO)"

"massive"? :D The M in MIMO is multiple.

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

#83

Post by lucideer »

zeleza wrote: post #48

It seems theoretically impossible for non-ionising radiation produced by 5G or any other radio emitters to cause cancer as there's no known mechanism for it to induce carcinogenic damage, so a priori we should expect that 5G is safe until shown otherwise. Joel Moskovitz was co-author on a meta-analysis ( https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366 ) that claimed to find a link between mobile phone use and brain…

> his was a meta-analysis of case-control studies, which is the weakest form of study ... Moskowitz even notes this in the discussion of his paper

Sounds like he's noting that the link found is (as you say) weak to non-existent. Which supports the claim in this Scientific American article: that studies are inconclusive and as such we have no reason to believe the technology is safe.

Also worth pointing out here (as I have elsewhere) that the ACSH link is not from reputable org. It seems to be the only link people are posting and re-posting to rebut Moskowitz's research here on HN.

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

#84

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

userbinator wrote: post #49
_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…

is simultaneously a testament to the openmindedness of science, and quite sad. That brings to mind the old saying, "don't be so open-minded your brain falls out." Also, I'm pretty sure Trump is very much not in the group of "cell phones/EMF/etc. cause cancer" believers.

Or the classic aphorism of the Space Marines: "An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."

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

#85

Post by ahje »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #16

Interestingly, this is apparently a story that a lot of Russian troll farms are pushing hard at the moment.

5G will likely increase IPv6 penetration, resulting in more stuff with public IP's, resulting in more stuff with ancient unpatched software vulnerable to attack.

Why would Russia argue against technology that would allow cyber warfare on an unprecedented scale?

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

#86

Post by whoopdedo »

_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…

This is the second article I've read on SciAm's _blog_ platform that has disappointed me with its pseudo-scientific tone. The previous was a rant[1] against GMO which prompted considerable dissent[2]. I get that the blogs authors have more editorial freedom, but opinions that stray so far from the scientific mainstream puts the fine magazine's reputation at risk.

[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/broccoli-i...

[2] https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2019/08/scientific-american-dest...

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

#87

Post by OJFord »

verall wrote: post #77
OJFord wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And so a medically sick person who insists on (or at least is very much more comfortable with) a homeopathy-certified doctor should be denied a medically (and surgically) qualified doctor?

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

#88

Post by Someone1234 »

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.

Goalposts notwithstanding you have to admit the list is kind of hit or miss. Whenever their job isn't listed they're either retired or were never in a related field. For example you listed Harvard, Columbia, Monash, and McGill above. Half the people from those institutions are either unqualified, retired, or both.

Plus there's places like "ElectroSensitivity UK" which aren't scientific institutions.

PS - I fully admit that there are subject experts from trusted institutions included too. But you're being far too defensive for quite legitimate questions/criticisms.

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

#89

Post by ilikehurdles »

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.

That’s one hell of an ad hominem you’re getting away with.

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

#90

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

I'm amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves.

Yet they are very ready to call "more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields" "wackos" or "cranks with a PhD", call their research "bullshit" or "impossible", call the people "thruthers" or claiming "Russian troll farms" are behind this story.

I don't think I've ever seen so much non-scientific HN comments on a science article.

At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really.

Post reply on HN