251–260 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Drinking water shortages are certainly common enough.
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 (…
On the one hand, I think your conclusion is correct, but on the other hand, it took quite some time to establish the health risks of smoking. Because there were concerted disinformation campaigns etc.
Whereas with smoking we can see over ten times higher risks for certain types of cancer-related deaths. That doesn't mean there's no effect due to mobile phones, but I think if it were remotely comparable to smoking we'd see a significant impact by now.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That sounds horrible. May I ask, what symptoms do you suffer from? Is the condition recognized anywhere? Has anyone explored treatments? Sadly the only other mention I've ever seen is the fictional series "Better Call Saul". And the character's suffering was depicted as entirely mental.
That's because it is entirely mental.
Blind tests were done on people, and their ability to recognise a radiation source was the same as random picking.
Anybody claiming to be able to sense radiation can be tested simply by taking two mobile phones, turning one off (leaving one connected to the internet and doing something online), putting both in a bag/under a bucket/..., having someone else randomly swap their position and trying to guess which is the one that is radiating at the moment. I can guarantee you're guesses will be around 50% in the long run, so basically random guesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...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.
5G has been paused in Brussels [1] already due to the companies inability to prove it is safe. The energy output of 5G antennas is apparently higher than 4G and higher than their current laws allow. [1] https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/55052/radiation-conce...
This is just some youtuber soccer moms spreading FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From TFA: "Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure." "The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves ... 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO)"
"massive"? :D The M in MIMO is multiple.
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?
there's maybe a model that describes this because its just a casual observation i am making, not based on data. but i believe that online meet-up spots are similar to physically hosting a party. people in-the-know show up in small numbers to a place, and now the time-and-place has turned into a 'party with the cool people'. on a graph, y-axis is coolness and x-axis is time - typical -x^2 graph where the party hits a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, the huge ones, many times the height of the house, are uh, really many times the height of the house above the house. According to [0], the maximum magnetic field from 275kV-400kV overhead power line (this would be measured much closer to the line than you could possibly get to without climbing the towers) is 100uT. Standing next to a running vacuum cleaner about 800uT. A standard clinical MRI is typically 1.5T,…
Even if current levels of radiation are harmless, it does not mean that the same applies to 5G. Studies funded by the 5G industry are 10 times more likely to say there are no side effects on human, which is suspect and an indication that is an attempt to manipulate science going on - https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-cell-phone-radiation-c... The leading independent organization on cancer causes says that current…
It is crucial to understand what this actually means. the IARC classifications are valid but — particularly to lay people — incredibly misleading and pretty much useless. All that “possible carcinogen” means is that we haven’t yet collected sufficient evidence to discount harm. It’s not evidence of carcinogenicity at all. If anything it’s the opposite, because it means that, despite the existence of relevant studies, there hasn’t been any consistent demonstration of carcinogenic effect.
Furthermore, IARC only classifies risk itself, not hazard [1], nor dosage effects.
For context, IARC classifies sunlight exposure and processed meat consumption as “definitely carcinogenic” [2]. Despite this, regular exposure to sunlight is crucial for your health, and regular meat consumption is known to have little absolute effect on cancer risk (in other words, although red meat does have an effect, the effect size is tiny).
[1] https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/health-and-safety/haz... [2] https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/