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

401–410 of 613 posts

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

#401

Post by ccffpphh »

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 promise I'm not being snarky but would higher cancer rates be linked to the fact that we rarely die from anything else nowadays, barring accidents?

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

#403

Post by donquichotte »

davinic wrote: post #334
someonehere wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not everyone eats barbecued meat or has barbecued meat near/next to their body 24/7 like people who use cell phones. I can opt out of eating barbecued meat though it carrying a phone close to my body.

Fortunately/unfortunately some of us live in Kansas City and have no choice in the matter.

Regarding 5G or barbecued meat?

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

#404

Post by NikolaNovak »

eytgsf5et wrote: post #269
NikolaNovak wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> Why not do the study?

Hmm; I don't think we fully understand each other.

Absolutely do the study; in fact, do several.

What then, though? A "study of studies", or any method of reconciling or making sense of these multiple studies, is the "meta analysis" in question. It's going to happen, in some way, somehow, by somebody. There is no way to reconcile multiple studies without doing some form of what we are calling meta-analysis. Even if it's just you or me googling it up and then deciding which of the studies to trust, that's a "meta-analysis".

My claim, therefore, is that it's far better to acknowledge this need and reality, and have dedicated teams of experienced professionals do it with an open, consistent method; then for each of us to mentally, subconsciously, "biasedly", to pick & choose and prioritize the studies.

[in the end, proper meta-analysis, and study replication, are the methods of how we discover inconsistency, contradiction, data issues, or other problems, whether in psychology or other domains. It's not a method of "fixing something", but a method of collecting, analyzing, and reporting on multiple studies and data points]

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

#405

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

bhouston wrote: post #145

They have been repeated reports that wifi is linked with male infertility... and I haven't yet seen this disproved as quack science... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240172/ https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190429005914/en/Stu... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X1... I definitely would like to avoid 5G beam forming…

Thanks for those articles.

On the damage Wifi is shown to do here, let's say it doesn't only show up in sperm but also in other cells.

Now imagine a pregnant woman, the unborn child being a girl. She's five months into her pregnancy. The unborn girl has at this point in time, in her own ovaries, already developed fully all the egg-cells she'll have for the rest of her life. Now imagine damaging those cells. How long before that shows up? Two generations.

It pains me to see pregnant women carelessly using an iPad on their belly to watch Netflix.

Sorry for ranting, thanks again for the info.

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

#406

Post by newshorts »

There seems to be many “all or nothing” arguments here.

How about a “maybe it’s a factor and we should do some research first because we just don’t know” argument?

Honestly, my alarm bells ring when people get this polarized and passionate about a topic that shouldn’t be that intense.

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

#407

Post by pitaj »

swader999 wrote: post #356
markus92 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different modulation techniques is the one they're claiming now. For some reason OFDM/CDMA is more dangerous than FM or amplitude modulation (AM) and there are huge biological differences, they claim.

The studies that look at calcium voltage channel activation in cells are easily replicated and point to biological effects.

Citation needed. Can you point to a replication from a reputable school or journal?

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

#408

Post by hanniabu »

dekhn wrote: post #271
jonnypotty wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your certainty regarding the reasons we have increasing incidents of cancer to seriously detract from your previous points.

Most people in the cancer field (I worked in a tangential one) believe that incidence of cancer is due to people living longer (cancer rates go up a lot as you age), and not dying of other diseases first. In a sense, cancer is what you get after you solved the other problems.

Based on nothing scientific, I chalk up the increase in cancer to contaminants in our water, whether it's well or city water, and the introduction of petrochemicals/plastics.

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

#409

Post by JangoSteve »

notacoward wrote: post #74
nabla9 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harvard Medical School is good institution but people on the list are not experts in the subject. Autism researchers etc.

Look at those goalposts go! Three minutes and already we have a new standard. Too bad it's still about the people and not the facts.

Wait, did the goalposts actually move at all? The original post said:

> 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.

You responded literally saying that the institutions are credible:

> Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust? Columbia? Monash? McGill?

That wasn't the original objection; they even said in their objection that the institutions are credible. I don't understand how the goalposts moved.

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

#410

Post by rpmisms »

Bias in research is real, and now there's a list of things that make you crazy, including:

- Evidence that cell phones might not be the best thing for you

- Evidence that a vaccine might harm some people

- Evidence that some medical convention is wrong

All of these are things that we absolutely need to know if true, but even good evidence towards these points is dismissed as noise because there's a pseudoscience culture surrounding them.

It's really frustrating to see both social and scientific progress hampered by idiots acting as such.

Post reply on HN