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

91–100 of 613 posts

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

#91

Post by k__ »

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…

As far as I know the exposure is a bit like a bell curve.

Right besides the tower you're in a blind spot, then it gets more intense as you move out of the blind spot and then it gets lower as you move further away.

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

#92

Post by vizzah »

I feel EMF from WiFi/LTE with my head. Someone wants to study me?

As soon as there is a high-bandwidth transmitter very close to me - headache comes in seconds.

I've done blind tests holding non-remitting iPad or the one streaming 1080p movies at high bitrate and easily able to tell when there is no radiation.

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

#93

Post by willis936 »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #89
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.

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

Is it though? Is it ad hominem to identify and separate people who know something about a thing from those who don’t?

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

#95

Post by brianwawok »

vfc1 wrote: post #67
verall wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I know, people living near large electrical wire high tension poles are at a higher risk of cancer already. As far as you know from what? This might sound harsh, but this is just fearmongering. HV power lines are, in an electrical sense, very far away from you. Even if magnetic radiation had some health effects, (which as far as we know, it doesn't, which is why MRI's are incredibly non-invasive to people…

> HV power lines are, in an electrical sense, very far away from you I've seen family houses literally next to high tension poles (not just regular poles, I mean those huge ones many times the height of the house), for example in Portugal. I don't see any definitive conclusion online for the link between high voltage lines proximity and cancer, but I am not an expert. Seems to me the consensus is far from general.

In the US there is usually a discount on houses bordering those. So the market sees a small difference.

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

#96

Post by pas »

coldtea wrote: post #63

In such matters, there's a strong psychological bias from tech-savvy people to dismiss evidence and side with the technology (not the science, which would include estimation of potential harm etc, but with the technological application, which is assumed as de facto good). It's a strong self-identification with technology who instills a fear of appearing as a luddite, like the unwashed masses who fear this or that and…

Hm. Sure, some people just point to how the same thing happened with GSM, 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi... but that's just a fallacy, because we also know that gamma rays, X-rays and UV are harmful, so deductively there must be some grey zone between 3G and hard gamma rays. Since we can't simply infer the health effects with certainty from first principles (let's say from physics/chemistry) we should demand relevant data.

But we have a lot of data (even if not as an enormous pile as about WiFi), and we know that so far the evidence points to no unexpected effects. There are interesting avenues of inquiry about the effects of 50-70 GHz on biology (heating of insects, interference with bacterial growth), of course those effects are a lot smaller than what we already do from air pollution to manufacturing an dumping lot of chemicals everywhere, heating our cities, and so on.

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

#98

Post by NateEag »

jiggawatts wrote: post #65
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…

How exactly are they "bad for the environment"? Would you prefer we revert to manufacturing plastic VHS tapes, then distribute them by diesel trucks like we used to in the good old days? Would you prefer people get their morning news on broadsheets made from the bleached pulp of rainforest trees? Or would you like to go back to the good old days of AM radio when the inadequacy of the receiver electronics was compensa…

I believe he's implying we don't need to share all that information, period.

I agree.

Remember: reduce, reuse, recycle is a hierarchy. Reduction is far more effective than the other two.

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

#99

Post by willis936 »

vizzah wrote: post #92

I feel EMF from WiFi/LTE with my head. Someone wants to study me? As soon as there is a high-bandwidth transmitter very close to me - headache comes in seconds. I've done blind tests holding non-remitting iPad or the one streaming 1080p movies at high bitrate and easily able to tell when there is no radiation.

Link the peer reviewed study.

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

#100

Post by notacoward »

pas wrote: post #82
notacoward wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that one seemed a bit odd to me, but it's not clear that "massive" was being presented as part of the acronym. Could just be unrelated hyperbole.

FWIW, I don't have a fixed opinion on this issue one way or the other. I just really hate seeing supposedly intelligent people rely so heavily on ad hominem or similar distractions. If there really is a problem with the cited research, I'd appreciate it if somebody could point to where those are. Likewise if someone could cite sufficient contrary research to justify abandoning the precautionary principle. That's all fine. I'm willing to be persuaded, but not by appeals to or rejection of authority.

Post reply on HN