391–400 of 613 posts
I feel EMF from WiFi/LTE with my head. Someone wants to study me? As soon as there is a high-bandwidth transmitter very close to me - headache comes in seconds. I've done blind tests holding non-remitting iPad or the one streaming 1080p movies at high bitrate and easily able to tell when there is no radiation.
And if anything, what time has shown me is that the for-profit people will not operate these right. As regular people, we can of course choose to stop buying 5G phones, as long as we do have other sources of Internet.
My personal mobile internet usage has shown me that it is grossly expensive, underutilized and doesn't majorly solve a speed problem for me - only remote connectivity.
And no, I don't need more cancerous substances than there are. Especially after watching Chernobyl, I sure as hell don't need radiation messing around with my cellular structure.
In short, 5G is unnecessary in most cities, and the risks outweigh the benefits, IMO.
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…
MIMO is multiple inputs, multiple outputs, not massive. If the author is bending terminology to enhance his case, that makes the case look weaker...
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…
Diagnosis has simultaneously increased, especially in cancers where the rationale for treatment is low (e.g. prostate cancer in most men).
(work in cancer research)
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).
Agreed, but there are plenty of factors with a better-explained causal mechanism than non-ionizing radiation. Like the three you listed. My money is on diet and pesticides/preservatives/etc. being another big one. With this, too, there is little official evidence that, say, Roundup, causes cancer, but there is, imo, a stronger lobby against a positive outcome in those studies, and they don't necessarily control for i…
In sum, I’d rank the risk of Roundup being carcinogenic on roughly the same level as that of 5G: possible but unlikely, given the best available evidence.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Laws" tend to be less rigorous and more narrowly applicable than "theories," though the colloquial meaning of the terms is switched.
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 find your certainty regarding the reasons we have increasing incidents of cancer to seriously detract from your previous points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t double post. But also, cancer death can go down while cancer diagnosis can go up.
A big confounder in studies based on diagnosis numbers is that you can confuse better diagnosis with higher incidence, and earlier diagnosis with longer survival. No room for confusion with Death though, it's very cut and dried. Suppose that today the average person tells their doctor about a symptom of Example Cancer (which is incurable) six months before it kills them. 1 million people per year in Standard Country…