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

101–110 of 613 posts

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

#101

Post by Someone1234 »

pjc50 wrote: post #71
Someone1234 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

5G requires far more towers than 4G or 3G before it, and if biological damage is possible accumulated risk when measured over an entire population can still be problematic.

Ultimately this isn't simply an issue of "personal risk." If there's no danger, there's no danger. But if there is and you live in a major city simply not owning a cellular device may only lower your exposure.

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

#102

Post by filleokus »

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.

I think it would be interesting, and potentially beneficial for you, to do a proper double-blinded test of your claim.

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

#103

Post by Someone1234 »

k__ wrote: post #91
Someone1234 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

5G requires more towers, closer to their end users. To quote the article:

> 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

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

#105

Post by mikkelam »

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.

so you're suffering from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivi...

It has been widely studied and no proof of such an ability exists. Would love to see some proof of this from you

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

#107

Post by notacoward »

Someone1234 wrote: post #88
notacoward wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 admi…

> the list is kind of hit or miss.

It seemed that way to me as well, but the real point is that it's irrelevant how well or poorly we judge those people. What matters is the facts they or others present.

> you're being far too defensive

Defensive of what? I haven't even expressed a position yet, other than "logical fallacies are bad" and I'm pretty willing to stand by that one. Are you here to argue the converse? To the extent that people or motivations matter at all, why condemn me but not the one who created the digression?

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

#108

Post by epanchin »

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.

have you conducted a double blind test? Label two which are streaming, and two which aren’t. Ask a friend to pick two at random. Repeat many times and record results.

Many people have been studied who present with these symptoms. They are consistently unable to detect the presence of fields.

PS I can already see fault with the experiment in which the streaming devices are likely to be warmer.

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

#109

Post by Tepix »

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 (…

> I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal

Cancer rates are rising and we're not sure why. Is that acceptable?

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

#110

Post by ss2003 »

pjc50 wrote: post #71
Someone1234 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or in your pocket. Where do you carry your phone?
Post reply on HN