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

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

#421

Post by driverdan » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

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.

It's unfortunately common in science for someone who's an expert in one field to think they can easily be an expert in another field and get it completely wrong. Linux Pauling is the most well known example of this.

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

#422

Post by carapace » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:30 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 .

The Sentinelese, but they shoot visitors.

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

#423

Post by madengr » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

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.

As I type this across from Jack Stack. Korean BBQ is better anyway.

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

#424

Post by Aperocky » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

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…

Don't fight a knee jerk reaction with one from your own.

> Cancer have risen to 1 in 5 in women and 1 in 3 in men, and nobody knows why

'Nobody knows why', seriously? Did we not establish that the likelihood of cancer increase with lifespan? When you only gets to live to 50 of course you don't die of cancer and heart disease nearly as easily. Your risk of cancer increase each year of age lived after a certain age, and any increase in life expectancy will result in more people eventually dying in cancer.

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

#425

Post by blix » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #420

blix wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a substantial difference in my opinion. Laws rarely put forward a mechanism or seek a complete understanding of a relationship, while theories often do.

Ohm's law was a law long before the electron was discovered. It's an emperical linear relationship that just seemed to work. Since no mechanism is suggested, it's not possible to determine whether ohmic behavior is expected or not. In contrast, The Drude Model's explantion of ohmic behavior could be considered a theory. It makes an attempt to understand the underlying physics, and from this it is possible to predict whether a material will follow Ohm's Law or not.

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

#426

Post by carapace » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

LeonM wrote: post #293

kevingadd wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember how long it took for us to finally get lead out of gasoline?

No, I don't because that happened in 1991, I was 5 years old back then. Also, what has lead in gasoline to do with EM-radiation?

"Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson did a whole episode on it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room

TL;DR: We poisoned ourselves for about half a century.

> The episode describes how science, in particular the work of Clair Patterson (voiced in animated sequences by Richard Gere) in the middle of the 20th century, has been able to determine the age of the Earth.

> Patterson found that his results were contaminated by lead from the ambient environment...

> Tyson goes on to explain that Patterson's work in performing lead-free experiments directed him to investigate the sources for lead. Tyson notes how lead does not naturally occur at Earth's surface but has been readily mined by humans (including the Roman Empire), and that lead is poisonous to humans. Patterson examined the levels of lead in the common environment and in deeper parts of the oceans and Antarctic ice, showing that lead had only been brought to the surface in recent times. He would discover that the higher levels of lead were from the use of tetraethyllead in leaded gasoline, despite long-established claims by Robert A. Kehoe and others that this chemical was safe. Patterson would continue to campaign against the use of lead, ultimately resulting in government-mandated restrictions on the use of lead. Tyson ends by noting that similar work by scientists continues to be used to help alert mankind to other fateful issues that can be identified by the study of nature.

Emphasis added.

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

#427

Post by bArray » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:37 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 .

There are large cellular areas not exposed to significant (read: detectable) levels of radiation if you're willing to travel. Third world Countries would be a good place to start.

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

#428

Post by jdietrich » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

eytgsf5et wrote: post #298

SigmundA wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun is a 1000 watts per square meter exposure at your body, cell towers might be 100w if you hugged the antenna then inverse square law to distance to about 0.00000001 watt with a strong signal. Your cell device is a millwatts transmitter, equivalent to an LED light shining on you. You don't need hat and sunscreen for street lights or flashlights nor would you need it for cellular power levels, orders of magnitud…

The Sun is also at 5400K. Therefore, 99.9999038793% of the energy emitted is at wavelengths shorter than 1E-4m (0.1mm). Or, across the entire continuous spectrum (0, 1e-4m] , the total energy from the Sun is 0.0009612W, or 961uW. You might complain that 961 uW is much more than 10nW, but again, you have to consider that 961 uW is across the entire spectrum (0,1E-4]. The Sun is less powerful at narrow spectrums becaus…

>Therefore, 99.9999038793% of the energy emitted is at wavelengths shorter than 1E-4m (0.1mm).

Shorter wavelengths have higher photon energy. It's the short stuff that you have to worry about.

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

#429

Post by plughs » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

hannob wrote: post #396

plughs wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's nothing wrong with changing fields. But if you tell me "these are the most relevant scientists in the field" and most of them aren't actively working scientists - it looks fishy...

You might find it more informative to look at the last author, who is typically the expert and ( ideally ) is helping to drive the research.

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

#430

Post by driverdan » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

swader999 wrote: post #353

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the character's suffering was depicted as entirely mental. That's because it is entirely mental. Blind tests were done on people, and their ability to recognise a radiation source was the same as random picking. Anybody claiming to be able to sense radiation can be tested simply by taking two mobile phones, turning one off (leaving one connected to the internet and doing something online), putting both in a bag…

My quality of sleep is much better with cell and wifi off. I live rural so there's less external sources too. It's significant enough that I turn it off every night as a habit. My issues with insomnia started back in 2000 when I first brought work into my small apartment.

Correlation is not causation. It could also be as simple as the light or vibrations from your phone at night disrupting your sleep. I've found blinking lights can make my sleep worse.