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

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

#261

Post by NikolaNovak » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

BostonFern wrote: post #239

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.‎

Isn't meta-analysis necessary and critical today?

With a potentially large # of studies on a specific subject, some of which may be contradicting, meta-analysis will be done.

Whether by accredited scientists, or institutions who do this on a professional basis with open and established criteria and consistency in approach (though there may still be flaws in the approach); and/or by individuals when confronted with large # of studies, when I feel bias would almost certainly be the primary driver.

While you absolutely cannot eliminate the latter, it feels it would be foolish to dismiss or eliminate the former.

As long as:

a) World is a bit tricky (phenomena difficult to define and isolate; limitations in equipment and measurements; limitations in humans)

b) We use statistical analysis as primary differentiator of significance There will continue to be contradicting studies.

Not disagreeing it's always better to improve studies and experiments, but it feels like meta-analysis of multiple studies is not just a necessary evil, but a good and desirable next step.

Thoughts?

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

#262

Post by aaron695 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:28 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…

I did click

The list of peer reviewed articles is from Powerwatch - Who we know all about - https://www.badscience.net/2007/05/so-simple-a-child-could-s...

The petition of 240 'scientists' on (emfscientist.org) ask for

6. medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity;

This is coo coo science that NO reputable person would put their name behind. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is trivial to check, for low cost. Yet no one in the world has proven it exists.

Yes, the 240 scientist's are "bullshit".

I can't believe Scientific American allowed this blog article, or perhaps I can but are more saddened by it.

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

#263

Post by ss2003 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

rimliu wrote: post #174

ss2003 wrote: post #139

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?

It is certainly contaminated after being used. It has to be purified before hand too. The energy cost and environmental impact of manufacturing a single phone is tremendous.

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

#264

Post by Dirlewanger » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #118

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 (…

We've also had broadcast radio for over a century now, at much higher power levels than mobile phones.

Not really comparable (especially to the 5G technologies). Given their size, radio waves go right over us.

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

#265

Post by antisemiotic » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

rvense wrote: post #249

NateEag wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he's implying we don't need to share all that information, period. I agree. Remember: reduce, reuse, recycle is a hierarchy. Reduction is far more effective than the other two.

One of the use cases I saw somewhere for 5G was "smart wine glasses". Like glasses with sensors in them so the waiter at a restaurant would know where he needed to go to refill someone's glass. This was in a context where it definitely was not an ironic jab at the overuse of technology. I don't know if the product actually exists, but honestly. Honestly. Smart wine glasses! I think it's just like... a really, really…

I've seen wireless thingies that would beep when your order is ready at kebab joints. Since the basic principle is the same (1-bit signaling), I'm pretty sure it could be just as well rolled out right now, unfortunately.

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

#266

Post by lal » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

treypitt wrote: post #33

murgindrag wrote: post #10

I'd be interested in seeing signatures from people at institutions I recognize and trust. There are a lot of people with degrees FROM credible institutions, but very little in terms of currently being researchers in the field AT credible institutions. It's not hard to find 250 wackos if you pull random scientists working in random fields at random institutions. Most have no better way to know safety of 5G than I do.…

The article explicitly calls the 200 participants the world's leading experts in non-ionizing radiation. I haven't researched their credentials or examined their research. But if all existing research points in one direction, that constitutes empirical evidence. Of course methodological and statistical problems abound across all academia. The article makes existing research seem unequivocal and argues we need to cond…

Fortunately the article is wrong because the signers are almost all either: 1) long-retired and out of the game entirely, 2) not trained in the field or qualified at all, or 3) known quacks who have peddled this kind of thing for years, or some combination of the three, and the articles cited are all written by that same population (and often published in no-name journals that I could probably get published in) or don't say what the author claims they do (many of the articles explicitly state that they found no connection whatsoever).

So I guess the moral of the story is "don't believe everything you see in pop science magazines," although I would have hoped nobody did to begin with(?)

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

#267

Post by eytgsf5et » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:31 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…

I find the HN community to be bi-modal with respect to technology: either they are very distrusting (luddites), or blindly in love with it (techno-utopians).

5G gets the techno-utopians in HN all excited about the possibilities of [INSERT THE POINT OF 5G] and they'll get mad at anything that threatens its introduction.

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

#268

Post by dekhn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:32 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 best explanation for why more people get cancer is fewer people are dying of other diseases. Also, more people are surviving cancer. Note: I'm a scientist, and one of the reasons I'm not clicking on links in the article is that I've already done my own looking into IARC and I've concluded they are non-scientific.

Note: I'm a biophysicist who has studied cancer and RF at the graduate level, and postdoctorate level, I can read the literature, and also make reasoned efforts at evaluating whether the literature provides any useful information that would affect the roll out of 5G from health perspectives. I am unable to find any reliable evidence that would indicate that this rollout will actually have "crisis" levels of health impact.

Now. On to the next step: I completely support high quality research done by high quality scientists on non-ionizing radiation. I would, like many other scientists, to see convincing evidence about the nature of damage that could be done by 5G. So far, nearly everything has been indirect in a way that does not inspire enough confidence to propose policy changes.

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

#269

Post by eytgsf5et » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #261

BostonFern wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.‎

Isn't meta-analysis necessary and critical today? With a potentially large # of studies on a specific subject, some of which may be contradicting, meta-analysis will be done. Whether by accredited scientists, or institutions who do this on a professional basis with open and established criteria and consistency in approach (though there may still be flaws in the approach); and/or by individuals when confronted with la…

Why not do the study? The phycologists have and they realized their field of study was built on sand. No amount of meta-analysis will fix that.

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

#270

Post by the_snooze » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #223

toofy wrote: post #211

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.

Data doesn't speak for itself. It has to be properly contextualized and positioned for an intended audience and message. It's for that reason that you don't ever see scientific papers that are just tables of numbers alone.

If you're outside a particular area of expertise, the intellectually honest thing to do is to say "I'm not knowledgeable enough to assess these findings" and defer to someone who is. At that point, you're assessing credibility, and affiliation and track record absolutely matter.