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

571–580 of 613 posts

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

#571

Post by bogomipz »

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.

>"The problem is that the existing infrastructure does not support network slicing"

What does "network slicing" mean here? I'm not familiar with this term.

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

#572

Post by jakobegger »

abstrakraft wrote: post #567
strainer wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get a lower exponent than the square with a beam. For a perfectly parallel beam the exponent is technically 0 (same intensity regardless of distance - like a laser pointer) For a focused beam intensity will actually increase with distance up to the focal point. Some energy can be absorbed by the medium (air/moisture/rain), but that is not covered by the inverse square law.

Not with a planar or linear array. I'm skeptical, but prepared to learn something: what sort of array can generate a square beam? Even lasers spread. This guy agrees with me: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-th...

It depends. The inverse square law applies to spherical wavefronts. Due to diffraction, wave fronts always become spherical in the far field.

But in the near field, that's not the case.

Beamforming arrays have planar wavefronts close to the source, so the inverse square law does not apply. The wave fronts will become spherical again at a "large" distance from the emitter, where the meaning of "large" depends on wavelength and emitter size.

Focussed lasers also do not have spherical wave fronts in the near field. The distance at which the inverse square law starts to apply to lasers depends on beam width, coherence, and focus.

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

#573

Post by manicdee »

shkkmo wrote: post #518
aey wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you just answered your own question. As detection improves, so will the rates at which cancer is detected.

AFAIK, Better detection means earlier detection and may not lead to a decrease in cancers that are never detected.

It leads to in increase in cancers detected before the person dies of non-cancer causes.

Situation: person has an almost undetectable cancer. They see a doctor, no cancer detected, later that week they are shot by police at a routine road stop.

We get in our time machine, go back a week and a bit, and supply the doctor with a better detection kit.

Situation 2: person has an almost undetectable cancer. They see a doctor who refers them to a specialist, cancer detected, another notch on the cancer tally board. Later that week they are shot by police at a routine road stop.

Nothing has changed except in the second case there’s another cancer detected. The person is still dead from non-cancer causes, just in one scenario they died as a haver-of-cancer and in the other they didn’t.

Better/earlier detection will necessarily lead to a decrease in cancers that are never detected (which I interpret as an increase in cancers detected before mortality from other causes), otherwise it’s not better/earlier detection.

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

#574

Post by blub »

manicdee wrote: post #568
acqq wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read it, the paper itself is much more balanced than how the biased persons (in any direction) would like to talk about it. It ends with (emphasis mine): "The main results obtained in the present study were a doubled incidence of all neoplasms with a threefold increase of cancers of the alimentary tract and a sixfold increase of malignancies of the haemopoietic system and lymphatic organs in 20- to 59-year-old…

TL;DR: the correlation is high flux EM (ie radar) exposure being linked with significantly higher rates of [cancer]. The cause may be something environmental also correlated with EM exposure such as industrial solvents (such as those typically used in the manufacture and maintenance of electrical systems like radar) which we already know to be carcinogens.

The post you replied to is already a summary and a much better one than yours.

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

#575

Post by blub »

manicdee wrote: post #569
pergadad wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not at all a counterpoint. This review basically says "We need more data" and says the reason not to draw conclusions yet is that we don't even know how much exposure we experience in daily life.

Plus correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not an excuse to completely ignore findings either. As the original study said: more data/analysis is needed.

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

#576

Post by h1d »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #184
h1d wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point but I have a hyper sensitivity to EMF (among other things) and I turn off any wireless technology wherever I can (like Bluetooth, when I don't have any paring devices at home) and many devices aren't comfortable for me to keep, despite me working in an IT industry. The symptom isn't classified as a disease at where I live, so it's hard to get any decent medial treatments and I'm afraid 5G might harm…

That sounds horrible. May I ask, what symptoms do you suffer from? Is the condition recognized anywhere? Has anyone explored treatments? Sadly the only other mention I've ever seen is the fictional series "Better Call Saul". And the character's suffering was depicted as entirely mental.

It just takes away my concentration and makes me look tired (which is almost the norm now) and my thinking gets clouded. Without controlling the environment to the point I remove any devices that cause me certain uncomfort, I can't have much time productively. This also goes for chemical matters, as if I don't clean the floor, wall and clothes often, same happens.

I think northern Europe has recognized EM hypersensitivity as a symptom but last time I checked, it's not widely recognized worldwide.

I can completely say this is not mental. Like, say I get a new phone which I wanted to buy and then if it damages me, I regretfully have to sell it. Also I can feel better by turning off Bluetooth, so there are clear physical causes for me.

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

#577

Post by h1d »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #179
h1d wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point but I have a hyper sensitivity to EMF (among other things) and I turn off any wireless technology wherever I can (like Bluetooth, when I don't have any paring devices at home) and many devices aren't comfortable for me to keep, despite me working in an IT industry. The symptom isn't classified as a disease at where I live, so it's hard to get any decent medial treatments and I'm afraid 5G might harm…

Have you ever tried a double blind test of your symptoms? I'm not going to be judgmental at all, but my friend's father had this ~10 years ago, and (being a scientist) decided to participate in a double-blind study. Turned out he scored no better than chance on any of the tests. That was a big enough eye opener for him that he was pretty much "cured" of EHS.

That's interesting. I could try it but I have plenty of cases where I see clear causes that make me unnecessarily tired and this is going on with me for 2 decades now.

- Turn off wireless signals like Bluetooth (I keep WiFi with low emission setting which isn't as bad as BT but 5Ghz is worse than 2.4Ghz, so I only use 2.4Ghz frequency.)

- Many of recent phones. (Bought iPhone X, Pixel 3a and those I can't keep close to me no matter how I tweak their settings, so they're away from me kept in boxes but I still need them for testing for my work.)

- LED displays keep me uneasy. I use fluorescent ones.

- IC chips used for credit cards and passports. I keep them minimum in my wallet.

These are from what I've bought and sold just to find what might feel better for me. I wish I could just keep what I want.

(Also not EM but chemical substances, just to say I've been living with hypersensitivity.

- Keeping clothes on after coming back home from outside. So I quickly wash and take shower.

- Need to clean wall every few weeks before I feel kind of choked, maybe due to glue used for the wallpapers.

- Very small amount of mold. I have to clean my air conditioner from a professional service every season.)

I can keep going but those are some.

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

#578

Post by h1d »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254
paulryanrogers wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds horrible. May I ask, what symptoms do you suffer from? Is the condition recognized anywhere? Has anyone explored treatments? Sadly the only other mention I've ever seen is the fictional series "Better Call Saul". And the character's suffering was depicted as entirely mental.

> 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…

I haven't taken any blind tests but if the testing environment isn't causing me problems to begin with (chemically or EM), like at home where I control the environment, I can tell what's good and bad. That's how I decide what to keep and what to sell when I buy something.

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

#579

Post by h1d »

driverdan wrote: post #512
swader999 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not wifi. There's literally no way for you to detect it and there are other, stronger radio signals constantly bombarding you.

I feel better if I completely turn off WiFi or Bluetooth. I can see I'm exposed to plenty of other signals by living in a city but it doesn't mean they're nothing. It just removes the added damage being done and it makes quite a difference to quality of life which would be hard to imagine for you.

My ammature theory (5Ghz wifi feels worse than 2.4Ghz wifi) also says higher frequency for short range signals does more harm, thus it's more sensitive to turn those off than being exposed to other lower frequency used outside.

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

#580

Post by h1d »

h1d wrote: post #121
LeonM wrote: post #45

With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (…

I see your point but I have a hyper sensitivity to EMF (among other things) and I turn off any wireless technology wherever I can (like Bluetooth, when I don't have any paring devices at home) and many devices aren't comfortable for me to keep, despite me working in an IT industry. The symptom isn't classified as a disease at where I live, so it's hard to get any decent medial treatments and I'm afraid 5G might harm…

Thanks for the down votes.

While I understand that you might want to silence vocal minorities for business reasons, I've only stated facts from my past 20 years of life.

Post reply on HN