“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by angry_octet » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

Jonnax wrote: post #38

"However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research." This sounds like bullshit. What were there changes between 3G and LTE that would make it more dangerous? More efficient use of spectrum?

There is even reason to think that newer modulations are safer precisely because they are more spread spectrum, with lower power and peak power at any particular frequency.

The towers are also spread more densely, with smaller cells and lower power, which also lowers peak exposure levels. For devices, just the fact they only have to transmit a short distance to a local tower tells you about the energy.

You are probably getting more cancer risk for stress hormones caused by the Instagram/Twitter on your phone than the electric field it generates, no matter how 'patterned' or polarised the field is.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:01 PM UTC

xorfish wrote: post #164

Tepix wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

There are quite a few obvious reasons why cancer rates are rising. * People get older * Cancer detection is improving * Cancer mortality is sinking

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by notacoward » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:04 PM UTC

toofy wrote: post #211

notacoward wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> ...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. This matters if your expertise are in the subject to which the facts belong, otherwise it means little, particularly in a subject which requires an incredible amount of knowledge of an an incredible array of subjects. I can look a bunch of absolute facts regarding 5g signals and make…

> as if all ideas

This isn't about ideas. It's about data. The quality of data is independent of where it came from, so it actually is equal in that sense.

> You should track down an expert.

Yes, we should refer people to experts more often. Why? Because they have data, not because they have titles or affiliations. Information is what makes them experts, and information can be shared.

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

#224

Post by markus92 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:06 PM UTC

xorfish wrote: post #164

Tepix wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

There are quite a few obvious reasons why cancer rates are rising. * People get older * Cancer detection is improving * Cancer mortality is sinking

And mortality by non-cancer causes is dropping (e.g. car accidents, infectious diseases).

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

#225

Post by abainbridge » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:06 PM UTC

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…

The article says, "more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating." The link to the 500 articles is https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl....

I checked the "conclusions" of the first two: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996112 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29709736

Conclusion of 1) Despite the improved exposure assessment approach used in this study, no clear associations were identified. However, the results obtained for recent exposure to RF electric and magnetic fields are suggestive of a potential role in brain tumor promotion/progression and should be further investigated.

Conclusion of 2) Ever use of wireless phones was not significantly associated with risk of adult glioma, but there could be increased risk in long-term users.

They both read as, "we found no significant effect".

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

#226

Post by zaroth » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:06 PM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #171

pjc50 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not much way to avoid getting exposure to electro-magnetic waves?

You make it sound like EM waves aren’t being emitted or reflected by everything in the universe short of a black hole.

And cell phone EM exposure levels for someone who isn’t carrying a phone - hopefully this person knows better than to walk outside, or stand near a window!

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

#227

Post by arpa » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

digitalsushi wrote: post #209

arpa wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This site has been online since ~1997, I think, so I think most of the oldtimers know it already. It follows the basic rule of "live by your words and be ready to do as you say". There are sub-rules, also, like "do not post if your post doesn't contribute to the thread". Unwritten rules also exist, that somehow curb the eternal september: "don't post for the first few years, just read". There is no concept of karma there, only thread rating, which IMO helps prevent karma-whoring, as it focuses not on individual, but rather a collaborative effort to make an epic thread. The mods are subject to these rules as well: I've seen mods banned by other mods and mods probating themselves for breaking their rules... i've spent my 10$ some five years ago, and, frankly, it was a good decision I would make again.

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

#228

Post by Frondo » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

digitalsushi wrote: post #209

arpa wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're talking about Something Awful, which is widely regarded as having very successfully run its forums with a lot of fun, trollish behavior without losing the overall good vibe of the community, by doing exactly what he said.

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

#229

Post by personlurking » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

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 (…

Genuine question: Is there a name for saying "past evidence hasn't shown this to be true, thus it's likely to remain untrue"?

I was debating a different technology with a friend and he made such a comment, but my response was that the frequency, scope and importance of past technological advancements won't hold a candle to those of the future.

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

#230

Post by bart_spoon » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

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.

Couldn't it simply be that we are curing/reducing the incidence of most other diseases? Cancer is something that typically doesn't occur until the later years of life. By reducing the number of people who die of other causes, you are increasing the potential population of people who end up getting cancer.