So my summary from the comments here is that almost all scientific study is junk, except when one is certain themselves it isn't.
“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
341–350 of 613 posts
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#342The 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 da…
There's plenty of ways that non-ionizing radiation can result in increased cancer rates. For example, they can induce currents in the DNA (DNA is s molecular wire) which might jam the base excision repair system and prevent it from detecting DNA damage (which is a redox-driven process).
What's even scarier is that this sort of an effect will not be found in a standard Ames test and also is unlikely to be found in highly controlled lab settings, since it requires a second factor - a contaminating primary mutagen - to manifest its effect.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#343Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#344What do we do instead then? Just give up and stick to using 4G?
If it is truly unsafe, yes. And develop a new next-gen wireless technology. Just because someone developed it does not mean we have to adopt it.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#345I'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…
It's anecdotal, but a friend of mine with cancer switched to a keto diet and he had one tumor shrink, to the point where his doctor said they could (and should) now operate on it.
The large increase in sugar and starch in our diet does contribute to fast growing cancer cells and there are studies that link being overweight/obesity with cancer.
We weren't this fat decades ago. Some may blame more office work, but the biggest factor is the amount of sugar/carbs in our diets. It's grown tremendously and yet no one seems to take it seriously, discrediting things like Adkins/Keto as "fad diets" when they were closer/more consistent with American and Western European diets for several decades.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a reasonable approach in general. Whether it is made in good faith or not is a red herring and does not change anything. What's more important, since you mention the 'scientific consensus' and his claim that there isn't enough data is: What is the consensus on 5G (I suppose that means mmWave) and what are the studies it is based on? That would allow to make a factual comment on his claims about health…
> * Whether it is made in good faith or not is a red herring and does not change anything.* That’s true only if we indeed know nothing about 5G, and that’s demonstrably not the case. In fact, the pretend open-mindedness is tantamount to denialism, if we accept that findings on ≤4G translate to 5G, and there are good scientific reasons for thinking so, based on our established understanding of physics and biology. It’…
You are replying beside the point when you keep focusing on that point.
This is a reasonable approach and it is a general approach. Now, about 5G, again the question is what we know or don't know about any risks.
If there are no or very few studies about the effect of mmWave then it is indeed reasonable to ask whether precautions should be taken.
You seem to suggest that there are indeed no such studies but that it can be assumed to be safe because emissions in a different part of the spectrum are safe.
Whatever the reality is, this is simply not a scientific approach and does suggest that you have no factual reason to believe that mmWaves are safe (or dangerous actually, you simply don't know).
I am not saying that he is right, but scientifically we cannot just counter his argument by "no, you're wrong".
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#347With 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 (…
5G is also fundamentally different in one important way. We are moving a way from fewer high powered towers, to a lot more low powered cells. Yes this existed in 4G, but 5G is taking it to the next level.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Because life expectancy has also risen; people who used to be dying of other things are now living long enough that cancer is more common.
Unfortunately the hunch you have just spendt 30 seconds thinking about is sadly incorrect. The increase in life expectancy doesn't account for the increased incidence of cancers. There are other factors at play, which need to be investigated (some that we know: obesity, pollution, cigarettes).
Cigarette smoking has fallen a LOT in the US in the past few decades, though there does seem to be a resurgence lately with "vaping".
Pollution is lower too (again, in the US): cars used to pollute a LOT more. Smog used to be far, far worse in the LA area decades ago, so even with more people and more cars, pollution is lower, particularly localized pollution that affects people more. Of course, global warming pollution is certainly higher, but that isn't localized and shouldn't have any effect on you (it's just CO2).
Obesity is significantly worse, however.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#349With 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.
The pulsed nature of the newer technologies is different enough.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#350With 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 (…
> 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?
Sperm counts are worth considering.