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

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

#501

Post by ByzantineO6 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

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.

you're gonna die, bucko! of A,B,..Z., sooner or later. Make it past Y,and Z's gonna get ya. Change my mind!

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

#502

Post by ByzantineO6 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

The usual luddite/neoDruid garbage, all of it. The market for FUD is always a bull market, you might say.

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

#503

Post by ByzantineO6 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #369

murgindrag wrote: post #10

I'd be interested in seeing signatures from people at institutions I recognize and trust. 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. It's not hard to find 250 wackos if you pull random scientists working in random fields at random institutions. Most have no better way to know safety of 5G than I do.…

Why is being below visible light a factor? Different wavelengths have different properties that don't necessarily map linearly with frequency, such as the ability to pass through your body.

E=h.nu;frequencies under UV have insuffient energy/photon to ionize anything.

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

#504

Post by dekhn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:44 PM UTC

tboyd47 wrote: post #499

acqq wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please give a link, I want to read it without going through these that aren't that interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8717316

it's a single paper by a single author (itself a proxy measure of low quality) about a single population (military), based on indirectly (not-measured) exposures. I don't think you can really conclude anything at all about that paper.

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

#505

Post by dekhn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

effie wrote: post #492

dekhn wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's more like 35-40%.

In 2014, 73% of men, 67% of women. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...

I'm going off this page: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf

Please note the table you showed the 73% is combination of "overweight" and "obese" while the row that shows obese is the same number as my citation.

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

#506

Post by swader999 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #430

swader999 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's wifi too. I sleep with a mask and ear plugs. The very best sleep I get is with complete emf shielded and grounded clothing. The nights I don't do this are significantly worse. I'm tempted to get a sleep tracker but most are bluetooth. I've even tuned my router so it does less frequent heartbeats. If I ever build a house again I'd spend the money on shielding it entirely.

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

#507

Post by dekhn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

shpongled wrote: post #436

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…

As a biochemist, I just want to chime in that I think part of the reason for an apparent increase rise in cancer rates is that we have eliminated many other causes of death already - we have to die of something, and cancer is something that is not "curable" in the sense of other disorders. After looking at the list of publications purported to be evidence, I have to agree with the other comments here casting doubt. M…

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have worked with world-class scientists where the author only had a gmail address (untill we gave them an appointment at Berkeley).

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

#508

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

tboyd47 wrote: post #466

Spooky23 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that concerns me about millimeter wave tech and 5G is that it seems like a solution looking for a problem. My city just had a wave of poles dropped in a few neighborhoods, and they seem to me to be an expensive boondoggle. IMO, we would be better served by the heavy hand of the FCC allowing fiber providers to run telephone poles and trenches without any accountability (as the wireless carriers can with 5G).…

It's not a solution looking for a problem. The problem is that the existing infrastructure does not support network slicing. Without network slicing the telcos are severely limited in their pricing models. "5G" is just them trying to convince consumers that this is for their benefit.

I’m sure it solves the problem of making more money for the carriers and letting Verizon, et al, bust the CWA.

It (it being the millimeter wave 5G) doesn’t solve any problem that a customer has.

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

#509

Post by swader999 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #407

swader999 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's a lot linked in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

I don't think you'll see a lot of reputable schools taking this on though. But this effect should be easy to replicate at least.

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

#510

Post by dekhn » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

wtetzner wrote: post #476

mikorym wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the title of the link is phrased badly. "We have no reason to believe 5G is safe" makes me want to comment that "we have no reason to believe 5G is unsafe " without even reading it. Maybe the title should be more specific. For example: pointing out that millimeter waves are not present in <=4G.

To be fair, it doesn't seem unreasonable to start with the assumption that something is unsafe and work to prove that it is safe. Seems safer ;) If this was some technology where not having it would be a major impediment to society, then maybe it would be a different story. But 5G just doesn't seem that important to me.

If we were to do this, it would cause large numbers of techologies to never ever reach the public because people couldn't do the work to "prove" that something is safe. I would only recommend this policy towards things that we could reasonably expect to have catastrophic outcomes.