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

301–310 of 613 posts

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

#301

Post by GhettoMaestro »

javagram wrote: post #190
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. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really. Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential cul…

> Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential culprit.

Yeah I’m gonna need some data to believe that one. 90% obese / overweight? I’m calling bullshit.

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

#302

Post by scriptdevil »

nroets wrote: post #279
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…

Furthermore, even if cell phones cause cancer then the risk will in all likelihood be so small that it doesn't justify banning the technology. [1] For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5XkhUGzBs

Wouldn't the difference there be that the person consuming meat is voluntarily consuming it while even people sticking to older tech phones are exposed to the newer radiation? I am no luddite but this would be my argument from a devil's advocate position

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

#303

Post by swiley »

StavrosK wrote: post #300
swiley wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except our pockets (unless you wear tinfoil pants) and many other materials are transparent at those wavelengths which makes it a lot less crazy.

You don't think making an antenna that can detect an LED shining in a flat miles away is crazy because pockets are transparent?

No. Amateur radio operators have done it, and it’s not difficult to imagine how one would.

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

#304

Post by ozymandias12 »

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 writer is a known "truther" of the field. But I like his view, I believe we need opinions from his end of the spectrum, but I've also read a few times comments such as this:

>"Academia: Where Crazy People Can't Get Fired - Dr. Moskowitz disgraces the University of California-Berkeley in precisely the same way Dr. Oz and Mark Bittman disgrace Columbia University: They are charlatans who wrap themselves in the prestige of academia to peddle foolishness to anxious parents."

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised (in a good way!!) that Moskowitz got published on Scientific American at all.

Anyway, I have my fair share of worries on large density mmwave equipment environments, mostly focused on other things, as in, not on its effects on us, but on microbial life, bacterial life, not the focus of this article, so I won't derail, but at least for me, Moskowitz isn't this zero sum game as he may be to some field agents.

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

#305

Post by blue_devil »

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…

>>Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research.

One thing's for sure: there _is_ paucity of research on this topic - judging by a brief search on scholar.google.com for "4G technology health effects humans".

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

#307

Post by ozymandias12 »

The article writer is a known "truther" of the field. But I like his view, I believe we need opinions from his end of the spectrum, but I've also read a few times comments such as this:

>"Academia: Where Crazy People Can't Get Fired - Dr. Moskowitz disgraces the University of California-Berkeley in precisely the same way Dr. Oz and Mark Bittman disgrace Columbia University: They are charlatans who wrap themselves in the prestige of academia to peddle foolishness to anxious parents."

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised (in a good way!!) that Moskowitz got published on Scientific American at all.

Anyway, I have my fair share of worries on large density mmwave equipment environments, mostly focused on other things, as in, not on its effects on us, but on microbial life, bacterial life, not the focus of this article, so I won't derail, but at least for me, Moskowitz isn't this zero sum game as he may be to some field agents.

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

#308

Post by CobrastanJorji »

There are a lot of arguments for and against this, but what's not controversial is that widespread 5G is going to significantly impair our ability to forecast weather by as much as 30%.

23.8 GHz is the frequency water vapor in the atmosphere emits, which is what weather radars are looking for. A bunch fo 24 GHz signals all over the place are going to screw it up.

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

#309

Post by manifestsilence »

scotty79 wrote: post #206

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,…

This comment explains precisely why the dismissal from so many here. Correlational studies without a plausible causal mechanism are highly suspect.

As an illustration, people have used obviously bogus examples like, in the past 100 years, piracy has risen. So has global warming. Therefore, pirates cause global warming.

Unless a 5G study specifically addresses the mechanism, and how non-ionizing radiation can cause damage to DNA, or has a very large correlation established that does a very good job of controlling for other factors, these studies will be dismissed out of hand.

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

#310

Post by StavrosK »

swiley wrote: post #303
StavrosK wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think making an antenna that can detect an LED shining in a flat miles away is crazy because pockets are transparent?

No. Amateur radio operators have done it, and it’s not difficult to imagine how one would.

Indeed, nothing is difficult to imagine how to do if the method is common knowledge.
Post reply on HN