Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now • Hacker News Board

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#111

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

_0w8t wrote: post #106

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Representative democracy, independent institutions (courts, central banks, etc), the rule of law, the constitution, international treaties, human rights, crime/rioting/revolution, and most of all the truth are all "mechanics" that put a break on making every single issue a simple popularity contest. But when I said that I didn't want to rely on average voters' risk percpetion, I didn't actually mean any of that. I me…

You need to wait 30 or more years for the truth. Any effects if any will be highly non-linear and chronic exposure may be harmful only if one experience it for many years.

What you're talking about is uncertainty, not truth.

If we don't know anything about the effects of 5G, it could just as well be the cure for cancer.

But it's not a coin toss. We do know some things about how it works, we have decades of empirical data on similar technologies, and ultimately we always have to act in spite of uncertainty as even the effects of doing nothing are uncertain.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#112

Post by ebg13 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #108

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying I don’t beleive you; just that I don’t think anyone has ever actually repusproduced cell phone sensitivity (detection) in a controlled environment. How would you know if it’s just in your head?

> How would you know if it’s just in your head? Please don't say "just" in your head. It's implying that psychological conditions aren't as significant or real as physical ones. They are very real and need to be treated just like anything else.

That's both true and also not salient to the subject at hand.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#113

Post by godelski » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74

typon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to the studies done on infrasound, which seems to bother residents living near wind farms. The studies show that the biggest indicator of whether you're affected by infrasound is if you're told there is infrasound being emitted...

That's not really the question though. If you have someone eat food contaminated with lead or mercury, they may not be able to taste the difference, but that doesn't mean it's harmless. The question isn't whether you can immediately sense its presence, the question is the effects of sustained exposure. And the fact that the placebo effect is a real thing doesn't really tell you that one way or the other.

> the question is the effects of sustained exposure.

There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger.

[0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#114

Post by mateo1 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

Is there a good (and short) technical summary of the 5G specifications?

I've seen some (very disturbing) values of 20W/square meter reported. Is this true?

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#115

Post by laHiesh1 » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

_0w8t wrote: post #107

laHiesh1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm open to the possibility they're not safe if and only if the proper evidence is provided. As it stands, no peer reviewed evidence has being provided to show that there is a casual link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis.

For 100 years there was no peer reviewed journals that stayed that trans fats was bad. Yet it turned out they were really bad.

Simply because there is examples of things that we thought to be safe but were in-fact harmful does not award you the right to make bold claims without the proper evidence. That would be a very slippery slope. If you believe something to be harmful, go and prove it.

Because we were wrong in the past about some things, I'm going to make the claim without evidence that visible light kills. Everyone who has ever died of cancer was exposed to visible light for very long periods of time. Don't expose yourself!

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#116

Post by w0mbat » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

It looks like there are a couple of disinformation campaigns against cellphone infrastructure and particularly 5G right now. One is aimed at retargeting environmentalists to fight harmless cell towers instead of bothering industry by fighting global warming. The other looks like the usual Russian campaign to slow down the tech progress of other nations. For example there was a widely shared story that a 5G test killed a flock of birds in The Hague, which was completely false (check Snopes).

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#117

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 8:45 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #113

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the question though. If you have someone eat food contaminated with lead or mercury, they may not be able to taste the difference, but that doesn't mean it's harmless. The question isn't whether you can immediately sense its presence, the question is the effects of sustained exposure. And the fact that the placebo effect is a real thing doesn't really tell you that one way or the other.

> the question is the effects of sustained exposure. There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger. [0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc

A lot of the "reputable ones" were funded by the industry.

The truth is this is very hard to measure. You have something that happens over a period of years and is difficult to control for. How do you find a group of people in modern times who haven't used cell phones in the last decade, but at the same time are not a group of monks or Amish people with so many other lifestyle differences that everything is hopelessly confounded?

Being hard to measure isn't the same as not existing. The question is, what choice do you make when it's hard to get good information? Build a lot more radio transmitters that may or may not be a major contributor to the modern trend of increasing cancer rates, or prefer wired networks that don't?

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#118

Post by zzzcpan » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 8:47 PM UTC

w0mbat wrote: post #116

It looks like there are a couple of disinformation campaigns against cellphone infrastructure and particularly 5G right now. One is aimed at retargeting environmentalists to fight harmless cell towers instead of bothering industry by fighting global warming. The other looks like the usual Russian campaign to slow down the tech progress of other nations. For example there was a widely shared story that a 5G test kille…

Also could be coming from competing industries. Like you can find articles from ISP, telco suppliers in their own media pushing propaganda about harmful wifi without even bothering to hide that the whole thing is completely fabricated.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#119

Post by zzzcpan » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #117

godelski wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the question is the effects of sustained exposure. There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger. [0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc

A lot of the "reputable ones" were funded by the industry. The truth is this is very hard to measure. You have something that happens over a period of years and is difficult to control for. How do you find a group of people in modern times who haven't used cell phones in the last decade, but at the same time are not a group of monks or Amish people with so many other lifestyle differences that everything is hopelessl…

We don't need to study how specific complex tech affects humans if we know how radiation does in general, what energies are needed to penetrate the skin, etc. There is pretty much no reason to study 5g tech specifically.

Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

#120

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #108

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying I don’t beleive you; just that I don’t think anyone has ever actually repusproduced cell phone sensitivity (detection) in a controlled environment. How would you know if it’s just in your head?

> How would you know if it’s just in your head? Please don't say "just" in your head. It's implying that psychological conditions aren't as significant or real as physical ones. They are very real and need to be treated just like anything else.

Yes... but when the discussion is DONT MAKE 5G because someone may have a condition in their head, you see the difference between your point and the topic at hand right?