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

121–130 of 613 posts

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

#121

Post by h1d »

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 see your point but I have a hyper sensitivity to EMF (among other things) and I turn off any wireless technology wherever I can (like Bluetooth, when I don't have any paring devices at home) and many devices aren't comfortable for me to keep, despite me working in an IT industry.

The symptom isn't classified as a disease at where I live, so it's hard to get any decent medial treatments and I'm afraid 5G might harm me even harder when higher frequency typically makes me feel worse without a way to get away from it.

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

#122

Post by Someone1234 »

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 criticizing an expert's qualifications an ad hominem? Particularly when they're using their expertise to argue for an idea as here.

Seems like a double standard. They can use their expertise/reputation to endorse an idea but using that same expertise/reputation to qualify that endorsement is an "ad hominem."

To me discussing their expertise is core to their position, since their whole position is: "I'm an expert, I sign a letter based on my expertise for a specific course of action." If they aren't an expert it cuts right to the core of their position.

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

#123

Post by amdavidson »

notacoward wrote: post #61
murgindrag wrote: post #10

I'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.…

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…

When the list of people also includes folks who claim to "customize clinical trials to support marketing claims"[0] it is hard to take even experts with solid credentials seriously.

0: http://energymedicineri.com/

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

#124

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

userbinator wrote: post #114
BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #90

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…

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.

That's not true, cancer rates have risen also in children and young adults.

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

#125

Post by pas »

seanlinmt wrote: post #106

So what happens if you're standing in the path of a milimeter wave beam from a tower trying to reach a user behind a wall?

MIMO, active beam steering and paths with reflections. In theory. In practice, we'll see, but probably you'll have to hold your phone high to provide some clear line of sight between the antennas if you want those blazing fast speeds.

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

#126

Post by andrepd »

userbinator wrote: post #114
BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #90

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…

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.

Unfortunately the hunch you have just spendt 30 seconds thinking about is sadly incorrect. The increase in life expectancy doesn't account for the increased incidence of cancers. There are other factors at play, which need to be investigated (some that we know: obesity, pollution, cigarettes).

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

#127

Post by refurb »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #90

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…

I think this take is a little unfair. Sure, calling scientists “wackos” with reviewing the publications is extreme, we also know there is a massive body of scientific evidence looking at the link between RF waves and cancer that has pretty much found zilch at this point.

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

#128

Post by gsich »

murgindrag wrote: post #10

I'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.…

>Now, there's obviously some frequency band where we get into health risks. 5G jumps us from single-digit GHz to double-digit -- I'd guess you'd have to go at least past visible light before you run into safety issues, at least barring extremely high levels of exposure. Intuitively, it seems to me like that ought to still be safe, but I'm no expert.

I highly doubt that 26+ GHz will receive much attention. You have no range, you need line of sight otherwise it won't work. At least 3.4GHz (and the other LTE bands) don't have that issue.

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

#130

Post by taneq »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #124
userbinator wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not true, cancer rates have risen also in children and young adults.

A significant chunk of the rise in life expectancy is driven by a fall in infant mortality, is it not?
Post reply on HN