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

201–210 of 613 posts

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

#201

Post by pas »

andrepd wrote: post #126
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.

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).

https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#are-death-rates-from-cance...

"In other words, the individual incidence of cancer deaths has actually fallen."

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

#202

Post by ajsnigrutin »

koheripbal wrote: post #144
SigmundA wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absorbsion rates vary by orders of magnitude depending on signal frequency. A simple power comparison is not a great measure of affect.

Higher the frequency, less radiation penetration there is (skin effect), so higher = "better"

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

#203

Post by everdrive »

For everyone genuinely worried about this: have there been any studies that specifically single out technicians who work on cellular antennas? Long hours every day, getting closer to the antennas than any of us ever do? I'm not suggesting there's a risk, but it seems that if there were a risk, then we've identified one of the highest risk populations for study.

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

#204

Post by mensetmanusman »

maxmunzel wrote: post #70
mensetmanusman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last question is interesting. Our eyes create an image with ~ 1 Gigapixel resolution at frame-rate equivalent > 120 Hz. For real VR/AR, 5G is not fast enough, would have to work in the THz regime for wireless (wow, nature has a huge bandwidth requirement...). Interesting thing about THz is that most electronic materials breakdown and stop working.

The actual resolution of the human eye is much smaller than that and a lot of our perception is based on interpolation. It's pretty interesting to read up on this.

Yep, this. Each eye is ~1MP, but vibration increases spatial resolution.

Researchers are using this effect now with mobile camera sensors and can image on the 100 nm length scale using interpolation.

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

#205

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

hannob wrote: post #147

I clicked on a few links and Googled a few names. It's roughly what I'd expect: People with few publications now working in other fields, people without scientific publications, but university degrees, people who regularly speak at events from radiation critics, people who are invested in other fringe theories. People get fooled by "large lists of peer-reviewed publications". Peer review is a lowest level quality mar…

> "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.

The sixth link in the article will get you what you want: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138357421...

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

#206

Post by scotty79 »

The thing is that there's really ton of evidence that non-ionizing radiation is not significantly harmful to humans at levels that don't cook you.

If you want to counter that you can't just pile up small studies that might be hinting at possibility that there might be some other effect.

You need a smoking gun. Single study, but bulletproof and large, showing strong effect. Everything else will be dismissed as "maybe, possibly, but most likely not really".

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

#207

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

gnode wrote: post #158
Synaesthesia wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it was known to be harmful for a long time, whereas there’s no evidence yet that RF waves used by cellphones are harmful.

The trouble is, there's lots of evidence, and also lots of evidence that it isn't. The only way to draw a conclusion is by making a judgement about which evidence is better: which scientific experiments are better designed?

You can also analyze the plausibility of the arguments. Cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation.

This is similar to homeopathy. Even if the state of research is not great, we're discussing a theory that is just not physically plausible. The default assumption should be that it is wrong.

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

#209

Post by digitalsushi »

arpa wrote: post #189
koheripbal wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why i never mention HackerNews on Reddit. What is the next site we're all going to? ... and how will they control participant quality?

10 bucks for registration, heavily involved moderators handing out probations and permabans. I've seen it work.

aside from the cost for entry, that's the same sentiment that led to why i no longer contribute to wikipedia. zero censorship is too little; any is too much.

i'd love to hear your description of this working - you don't need to mention where it is specifically because that would of course, ruin it.

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

#210

Post by darkFunction »

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 used to get a very sharp pain in my head, above my ear, when making outbound calls, just before the recipient would pick up. Nobody seems to believe me, and I have never had the motivation to try to prove it to anyone, but it got to the point where I would hold the phone away from my head until the person answered.

It began with a Sony Ericsson, but happened across a couple of different phone brands over the years. Still happens extremely occasionally now (maybe twice a year) with my iPhone.

I'd be interested to know if the signal strength is suddenly spiked when a call is connected.

Post reply on HN