“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe” • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by pattisapu » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

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.

Phycology, the study of seaweed, is indeed all on top of sand! ;)

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

#412

Post by blix » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

stinos wrote: post #357

dnautics wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hig…

they can induce currents in the DNA By what mechanism (and it's likely not limited to DNA then)?

EMF radiation can induce a current in any condutor. Try putting a piece of tin foil in a microwave.

It's far from limited to DNA, but it's not hard to imagine why people care more about DNA than other conductive molecules.

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

#413

Post by pitaj » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #379

The mantra of radiation safety is reduce the risk. In that sense, an improvement in the energetic profile is potentially helpful. An xray or a plain ride is completely fine, but pilots as well as patience have some upper limits. xray is hard alpha radiation, but do you know how xrays are created?

X-rays are not alpha radiation. Alpha radiation is composed of alpha particles, aka helium nuclei. X-rays are EM radiation.

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

#414

Post by pstch » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

swader999 wrote: post #332

bArray wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to add to this that many academics who study wireless research, specifically MIMO beam forming - aren't particularly incentivized to find issue with 5G. I've spoken to a few who have dismissed health concerns whilst waving their hands about the actual Science. To them this is worth anything up to 10 years of funding and research opportunities in what can be a very competitive research area. They receive…

It is impossible to find a control group that hasn't been previously exposed to some form of 2/3/4g radiation .

This is often repeated, but I wonder if it's completely true. I'd completely understand if it was harder, and more expensive, to find such a control group, but it surprises me that it would be "impossible".

I can think of a few people I know that are much less exposed to 2/3/4g radiation, by living in the forest and not having a phone on them all the time. Isn't a control group that has been exposed to significantly less radiation still useful ?

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

#415

Post by computerex » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

SigmundA wrote: post #182

koheripbal wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absorbsion rates vary by orders of magnitude depending on signal frequency. A simple power comparison is not a great measure of affect.

Even at 100% absorption these are minuscule amounts of power compared to huge doses of ionizing radation we bath in every day.

What ionizing radiation are you referring to? I'd hope you are not bathing in ionizing radiation everyday...

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

#416

Post by lioeters » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #14

vfc1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything about him worth mentioning? After a quick search online, at first glance, he looks like a reputable researcher. Does he have industry ties that we should be aware of, reputation issues, conflicts of interest, something else?

I am also unaware of this topic, but this[0] is the second google result when you search his name. [0] https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/28/uc-berkeley-psychologis...

I know nothing about Joel M. Moskowitz either, but, as noted elsewhere, ACSH is not a reputable source [0].

[0] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_on_Sc...

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

#417

Post by rpmisms » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

newshorts wrote: post #406

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.

It's pretty simple: nobody wants to be the kook who won't use cell phones, so it's a contest to see who can be the most aggressively normal.

Maybe they're killing us, but damned if I'll be that guy.

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

#418

Post by tboyd47 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #203

For everyone genuinely worried about this: have there been any studies that specifically single out technicians who work on cellular antennas? Long hours every day, getting closer to the antennas than any of us ever do? I'm not suggesting there's a risk, but it seems that if there were a risk, then we've identified one of the highest risk populations for study.

Here's a longitudinal study on about 55,000 Polish military personnel found in the article:

"The cancer morbidity rate for RF/MW-exposed personnel for all age groups (20-59 years) reached 119.1 per 100,000 annually (57.6 in non-exposed) with an OER of 2.07, significant at P https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8717316

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

#419

Post by ttul » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

The author's bias is apparent from his biography:

"Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology."

This article does not represent scientific consensus. It is alarmist, linking nearly every report that supports the author's point of view and offering no opposing points of view. This is not journalism.

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

#420

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

blix wrote: post #398

monomyth wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Laws of Physics are in general not always applicable. Ohm's Law, for instance, is only applicable in a narrow range of conditions. "Laws" tend to be less rigorous and more narrowly applicable than "theories," though the colloquial meaning of the terms is switched.

Actually the difference between law and theory is nothing whatsoever.