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

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

#231

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

Someone1234 wrote: post #103

k__ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the exposure is a bit like a bell curve. Right besides the tower you're in a blind spot, then it gets more intense as you move out of the blind spot and then it gets lower as you move further away.

5G requires more towers, closer to their end users. To quote the article: > 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Haha, it’s not massive inputs and outputs. It’s multiple input/output antenna arrays.

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

#232

Post by XorNot » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #96

coldtea wrote: post #63

In such matters, there's a strong psychological bias from tech-savvy people to dismiss evidence and side with the technology (not the science, which would include estimation of potential harm etc, but with the technological application, which is assumed as de facto good). It's a strong self-identification with technology who instills a fear of appearing as a luddite, like the unwashed masses who fear this or that and…

Hm. Sure, some people just point to how the same thing happened with GSM, 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi... but that's just a fallacy, because we also know that gamma rays, X-rays and UV are harmful, so deductively there must be some grey zone between 3G and hard gamma rays. Since we can't simply infer the health effects with certainty from first principles (let's say from physics/chemistry) we should demand relevant data. But we…

No, we can quite safely say that visible light also does not cause cancer, seeing as how we're bathed in it daily.

So any proposed grey area would in fact have to be a total surprise outlier, where EM far less energetic then visible light tripped over some biological weak spot.

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

#233

Post by markus92 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

darkFunction wrote: post #210

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.…

Not when it comes to GSM, it has consistent timeslots for active calls. The dial tone is modulated the same way as speech data and can be considered active.

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

#234

Post by jonnypotty » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

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…

I find your certainty regarding the reasons we have increasing incidents of cancer to seriously detract from your previous points.

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

#235

Post by smolder » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:11 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 a rise in carcinogenic substances in air, water, and food. Maybe changes in the landscape of pathogens. You can't really rule out additional causes or contributers based on knowing some.

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

#236

Post by klmr » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #18

He is not arguing that 5G is dangerous. He is pointing out that there does not seem to be enough research available to state as a fact that it is safe and that, as a consequence, we might want to be cautious. That's a very reasonable general approach. Whether his proposal to stop 5G deployments altogether is proportional to our understanding of the potential risks, if any, is debatable, to say the least.

> That's a very reasonable general approach.

If made in good faith, yes. I’m not convinced that this is the case here, however, given that the author is fundamentally at odds with the scientific consensus on 2G, 3G and 4G safety, without acknowledging that he’s in the clear minority. In fact, he claims that the majority of relevant experts have signed the 5G moratorium, and this seems to not actually be the case. I actually think that disagreeing with the consensus, based on limited but potentially valid evidence, is completely acceptable. But he goes further and pretends to be in the majority, and that contrary evidence only marginally exists.

In sum, he makes demonstrably false claims about the current state of the scientific consensus, which makes me sceptical of everything else he says.

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

#237

Post by arpa » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #228

digitalsushi wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are absolutely correct, my good sir/madam/gender-inspecific pronoun.

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

#238

Post by hnarn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

harryf wrote: post #57

Wow. We’ve been in denial about potential health risks of mobile for years. But now there’s a risk that Chinese tech companies might corner this market, suddenly its time to worry about the health risks?

> We’ve been in denial about potential health risks of mobile for years.

Citation needed.

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

#239

Post by BostonFern » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

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…

I haven't read the article, and I'm not a party to the 5G debate, but what you're describing in your comment is a meta-analysis, which is a practice that has produced some of the most controversial findings in recent times. If anything is needed to clear up an inconclusive body of studies, it's better and more reliable studies and experiments, not meta-analyses.‎

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

#240

Post by jessermeyer » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

personlurking wrote: post #229

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.

It's just a specific use of either a Bayesian Prior or Heuristic.