i don’t know why 5G is so important when not only is 4G pretty good, but 4G is better than most wired internet i’ve used in the US and Europe.
My vote would be fix the often abysmal wired networks first.
“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
111–120 of 613 posts
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#112Interestingly, this is apparently a story that a lot of Russian troll farms are pushing hard at the moment.
sounds more like typical "wavies" bs.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#113EMF Scientist appeal is BS. It's random collection of people (many retired cranks) with PhD. Autism researcher from Harvard Medical School is not convincing.
Why not? Studying of not-neurotypical behavior in humans is less convincing than studies of rats?
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#114I'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…
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.
Because life expectancy has also risen; people who used to be dying of other things are now living long enough that cancer is more common.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#115Yeah. HackerNews is your local city's subreddit now. Agree - very sad.
Very true. Another symptom is the amount of sarcasm and jokes we see in every single thread. I'm really sad to see HN turn into just another subreddit.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 co…
Well, I think what https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21311000 describes is the sane approach. Basically a Bayesian inference from the available data and our priors shaped by our understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, higher order effects, etc.
And yes, there are effects of 50-70 GHz EMF on biology, first one is heating, which is completely expected but might cause problems for insects. (But we already blast them with a lot of light at night, a lot of heat from the pavement and our buildings, and a lot of chemicals in the air.) Another interesting one is that cell bacterial division seems to be affected when combined with antibiotics. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21261425 )
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#117I'd be interested in seeing signatures from people at institutions I recognize and trust. There are a lot of people with degrees FROM credible institutions, but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field AT credible institutions. It's not hard to find 250 wackos if you pull random scientists working in random fields at random institutions. Most have no better way to know safety of 5G than I do.…
I would like to add to this that many academics who study wireless research, specifically MIMO beam forming - aren't particularly incentivized to find issue with 5G. I've spoken to a few who have dismissed health concerns whilst waving their hands about the actual Science. To them this is worth anything up to 10 years of funding and research opportunities in what can be a very competitive research area.
They receive A LOT of funding from cellular companies in particular, any research that throws doubt on 5G could lead to their funding being pulled. Not only this, but most of the interesting 5G hardware is coming from the cellular companies on loan.
My point is: You have a perfect storm for a rushed technology with potential for health risks. Almost every Country on the planet is investing lots of money into 5G and the technology itself requires a significant number more cellular towers to be built in closer proximity to people.
If there is any genuine question about 5G's safety, I would rather stay on the side of caution. It's not as if people will kill over if they don't have 5G immediately. Not only this, the technology will be more mature and the price will likely come down for infrastructure development.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#118With 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 (…
We've also had broadcast radio for over a century now, at much higher power levels than mobile phones.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#119Radiation 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…
The sun is a 1000 watts per square meter exposure at your body, cell towers might be 100w if you hugged the antenna then inverse square law to distance to about 0.00000001 watt with a strong signal. Your cell device is a millwatts transmitter, equivalent to an LED light shining on you.
You don't need hat and sunscreen for street lights or flashlights nor would you need it for cellular power levels, orders of magnitude difference in exposure.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#120Earlier 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.
Yea, the huge ones, many times the height of the house, are uh, really many times the height of the house above the house. According to [0], the maximum magnetic field from 275kV-400kV overhead power line (this would be measured much closer to the line than you could possibly get to without climbing the towers) is 100uT. Standing next to a running vacuum cleaner about 800uT. A standard clinical MRI is typically 1.5T, so about 10000 times the strength of the power line if you were a lineman sitting next to a live line. Typical field under the line: 3-5 uT. That's standing right under the line. The family underneath the line gets more radiation from leaving the TV on, or god forbid, the wifi or their cell phone.
Consensus is not far from general. You don't have to be an expert. If you are really afraid of radiation, talking about power lines really weakens your case. They do almost nothing compared to normal household appliances we use all the time. The inverse square rule is real.
I think to avoid your best bet would be joining an Amish community. And don't go outside, without covering up. The sun's radiation is like, actually proven to be harmful to skin and DNA, and is many times more powerful. Too bad getting sun is also clinically associated with many health benefits! Oh what will we do...