141–150 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
EMF 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?
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…
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 magnitud…
A simple power comparison is not a great measure of affect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190429005914/en/Stu...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X1...
I definitely would like to avoid 5G beam forming aimed at my crotch if I wanted to have more children. But isn't that sort of close to where we all hold our phones when we are siting? Yikes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
People get fooled by "large lists of peer-reviewed publications". Peer review is a lowest level quality mark for a piece of science. It means that hopefully it's not complete bullshit. Sometimes it still is, because noone can forbid you to call your journal "peer-reviewed" with your own weak standards of peer review. And sometimes credible journals make huge mistakes (remember the "Wakefield-study"...). Even with only well-performed, non-flawed studies you'll always have some studies saying that something is there that actually isn't. That's simple statistics, you'll have outliers.
"Here's a large number of studies saying X" is meaningless in a topic where a very large number of studies have been done. What you need is systematic reviews of the literature that not only count studies, but evaluate their quality and combine their results.
Also it's not true that "nobody knows why" cancer incidence has risen. It's a mixture of people getting older and diagnosis getting better. Not mysterious at all.
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?
It is a good thing that we spend research effort into identifying why this is happening.
All I'm saying is that I have concluded, for myself, that EM-radiation is the least of my worries when it comes to negative effects (including cancer).
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've coined the term "orchard picking" for this. If the subject is climate or vaccines, most people will yell "learn the facts" and "follow the science" and generally act as though dissenters deserve every ounce of contempt we can pour on them. On those topics I generally agree, except maybe for that last part. But somehow on other topics - e.g. most discussions of programmer productivity or effects of technology - i…
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…
You don't think living longer has anything to do with this?