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

171–180 of 613 posts

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

#171

Post by kevingadd »

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.

That would only apply to the phone transmitting, wouldn't it? The RX is broadcast from the nearest tower, and 5G uses beam-forming. If your device (or another device near you) is receiving from the tower then there's not much of a way to avoid getting exposure.

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

#172

Post by kristjankalm »

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.

from where does this increase in cancer probability statistic come from? anyone have a link to a paper? tried googling but found nothing reliable sadly

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

#173

Post by TeMPOraL »

notacoward wrote: post #138
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'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…

Perhaps because everyone here knows there's very little actual, proper science on programmer productivity, and even less of that is applicable in workplace environment.

There is no break from the pattern in this thread. People still call for following the science - they just consider this article's science to be the RF engineering equivalent of Wakefield study.

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

#174

Post by rimliu »

ss2003 wrote: post #139
jiggawatts wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much water does it take to purify the silicon used in your phone?

Is that water destroyed beyond repair? Is there a water shortage where silicon is purified? What would you do with that water if it was not used to purify silicone, bring it to Sahara?

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

#175

Post by kevingadd »

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 (…

Remember how long it took for us to finally get lead out of gasoline?

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

#176

Post by m_eiman »

Tepix wrote: post #109
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?

Are they really rising? Not according to this statistic:

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

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

#177

Post by regularfry »

vfc1 wrote: post #13

> Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. I mean it can't be good all this radiation exposure. As far as I know, people living near large electrical wire high tension poles are at a higher risk of cancer already. I think so much can already be done with the network bandwidth we already have available. J…

There was an increase in leukemia associated with proximity to electricity pylons at one point. They found that it was caused by the herbicides they were using to stop plants from growing up around them and getting in the way of maintenance. Change the herbicide and the leukemia goes away.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

bhouston wrote: post #145

They have been repeated reports that wifi is linked with male infertility... and I haven't yet seen this disproved as quack science... 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…

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by semi-extrinsic »

h1d wrote: post #121
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…

Have you ever tried a double blind test of your symptoms? I'm not going to be judgmental at all, but my friend's father had this ~10 years ago, and (being a scientist) decided to participate in a double-blind study. Turned out he scored no better than chance on any of the tests. That was a big enough eye opener for him that he was pretty much "cured" of EHS.

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

#180

Post by heyoni »

notacoward wrote: post #107
Someone1234 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Super defensive.
Post reply on HN