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

381–390 of 613 posts

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

#381

Post by plughs »

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…

> People with few publications now working in other fields

I'm surprised this statement passed muster on HN where there must be some number of PhDs now working in other fields. Certainly the ones I know wouldn't take kindly to the idea that somehow, just because they left academia their research can be easily and completely dismissed.

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

#382

Post by JackRabbitSlim »

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…

We have already solved all the worlds problems, unified quantum mechanics with classical physics, cured cancer and figured out how to factor primes. None of these works will ever see the light of day or be taken seriously because of the sources.

That may sound like hyperbole but somehow I doubt it's far from the mark. Tons of modern advances were from novices or unaccredited. Flight, Relativity, Baysian and Boolean logic; Two hicks, a patent clerk, a preacher, and a self-taught math nerd.

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

#383

Post by andrepd »

pas wrote: post #201
andrepd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#are-death-rates-from-cance... "In other words, the individual incidence of cancer deaths has actually fallen."

You are looking at cancer deaths, which indeed have gone down from better treatments and better screening. This does not imply less incidence of cancer.

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

#384

Post by abainbridge »

klmr wrote: post #296
abainbridge wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says, "more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating." The link to the 500 articles is https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl... . I checked the "conclusions" of the first two: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29996112 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29709736 Conclusion of 1) De…

Careful, you’re misinterpreting the document. The two studies you’ve picked are listed as “neither evidence of an effect or a null finding”, they are not included in the “more than 500 studies” finding harmful effects. Those studies are prefixed by “P” in the document and, although I haven’t counted, a rough estimate based on the number of pages makes it plausible that there are > 500. That said, given the scientific…

Good point. Thanks for the patient explanation.

To partly redeem myself, I followed the links to the first two articles prefixed by "P". They were https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29725476 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29268055

The first didn't have a conclusion and the results were just the measured RF power in an apartment.

The conclusion of the second is, "A total of 900-MHz EMF applied in middle and late adolescence may cause changes in the morphology and biochemistry of the rat ovarium.", which makes no sense. "A total of 900-MHz EMF" is gibberish. The complete text is not freely available.

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

#385

Post by Guph »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #146
taneq wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant chunk of the rise in life expectancy is driven by a fall in infant mortality, is it not?

Well, if you could point me to a good scientific study that makes a link between higher life expectancy and cancer, I'd be inclined to believe it. Until then, I think the cancer incidence rise is shocking, and can't be explained by rise in life expectancy alone.

cancer incidence rising strongly correlates with our ability to detect as well as the push to look for it.

I also believe many of the cancers we successfully treat would be non issues if left alone. (all the young women who found lumps and become breast cancer survivors)

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

#386

Post by drucik »

gridlockd wrote: post #364
adamsea wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the World Health Organization (WHO) is cited: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf "Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1 , associated with wireless phone use."

The "possibly carcinogenic" declaration is quite weak ("evidence far from conclusive"). Even if it was "carcinogenic to humans", there's a lot of things that are vital to modern society which fall into that category. It's then up to the regulators to guess an "acceptable" limit of exposure.

“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” seems appropriate here...

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

#387

Post by abstrakraft »

sundbry wrote: post #362
magduf wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because you're only exposed to radiation if you actually use a phone. Google for "inverse square law". Your exposure is orders of magnitude lower from "second-hand cellphones" than from using it yourself; it's not like second-hand smoking.

Not if there's a cell tower every 100 yards putting out 30dB more power than your phone. The inverse square law also doesn't apply when you have phased arrays doing beamforming if you're directly in the path.

The inverse square law totally applies in the case of phased array beamforming, you just have a much higher gain to start with.

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

#388

Post by monomyth »

sundbry wrote: post #362
magduf wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because you're only exposed to radiation if you actually use a phone. Google for "inverse square law". Your exposure is orders of magnitude lower from "second-hand cellphones" than from using it yourself; it's not like second-hand smoking.

Not if there's a cell tower every 100 yards putting out 30dB more power than your phone. The inverse square law also doesn't apply when you have phased arrays doing beamforming if you're directly in the path.

the inverse square law always applies, hence the law part.

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

#389

Post by klmr »

plughs wrote: post #381
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…

> People with few publications now working in other fields I'm surprised this statement passed muster on HN where there must be some number of PhDs now working in other fields. Certainly the ones I know wouldn't take kindly to the idea that somehow, just because they left academia their research can be easily and completely dismissed.

Being such a person is totally fine (I’m one myself). What’s damning is the fact that this list is largely composed of just such people (plus some that are less qualified).

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

#390

Post by djsumdog »

flatline wrote: post #371
djsumdog wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know a few people who have lost a lot of weight on Atkins/keto. I think they are successful diets because they provide bright-line rules for people to follow, but they are also extreme and potentially dangerous. None of them could maintain those diets long-term because they developed things like kidney pain. Caloric restriction, eating a good balance of fat/carbs/protein, laying off saturated fats, sugar, and booze…

> kidney pain

I've had trouble finding good studies on this. I don't think it's true. I've been on pretty hard keto for over two years at a time. I know other friends who have and have never heard of kidney trouble.

You occasionally have a day or two where you eat out with friends or have some fried chicken every month, and initially there is a period where you feel sick for a week as your body withdraws from sugar, but other than that I've never had kidney issues and my blood work has always come back fine.

With Adkins you do start reintroducing some carbs eventually, but you still keep it under a limit, and go back down if you start getting unhealthy.

Post reply on HN