Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

beta.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#121

Post by davidmurdoch »

userbinator wrote: post #40
davidmurdoch wrote: post #23

My grandfather, one of the engineers that worked with the Voyager I and II teams, died of throat cancer. From the late 90s up until his death in 2007 he was warning people about the potential harmful effects of cell phone radiation. He would only use corded phones. His throat cancer was thought to be caused, at least in part, by his increased exposure to radiation from the instruments he worked on while working for t…

Did he also smoke? Keep in mind that AM radio has historically operated at very high power; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLW was broadcasting at 500kW(!) --- but to my knowlege, there has been no reports of increased health issues in the population around those areas, despite all that RF power causing lots of other very visible effects like turning various metal structures into ad-hoc radios.

He didn't smoke, or at least if he did, he never let kids kids know about it.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#122

Post by meldroc »

gambiting wrote: post #81
tonmoy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe from cooking meat?

People actually cook things in microwaves? As in - they go from raw product to a cooked product? I've only ever used and only ever saw microwaves bring used for warming up meals, never for actual cooking.

Well, it's certainly doable. Though for meat in particular, people prefer to use stoves, grills, and ovens, because while a microwave can heat up meat to the point where it cooks, you really need a grill or a hot pan, for example, to induce the Maillard reaction on the surface of a steak (give it a good sear), while leaving the inside medium-rare. Try doing that in the microwave...

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#123

Post by zeep »

KaiserPro wrote: post #84

"It’s unclear how many smaller base stations would be needed for 5G service. But it’s widely believed that there would need to be exponentially more because of the limited distance the signals can travel" Lets unpack this: 1) there is and has been lots of modelling to work out if the frequency bands are viable for business. 2) Where on the exponential curve is it? double? Quadruple? don't use terms that one clearly d…

Home routers are very limited in transmission power ... the cell towers probably not as much...

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#124

Post by CamperBob2 »

nashashmi wrote: post #60
CamperBob2 wrote: post #2

Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.

What you can't measure doesn't exist ... Until it is discovered! I can feel Bluetooth waves!

You should talk to the James Randi Educational Foundation about that ( http://web.randi.org/ ). Depending on how their rules are structured, the ability to detect Bluetooth emissions might qualify for the $1M prize that they offer for a repeatable, controlled demonstration of paranormal effects.

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#125

Post by KaiserPro »

piker wrote: post #91
KaiserPro wrote: post #84

"It’s unclear how many smaller base stations would be needed for 5G service. But it’s widely believed that there would need to be exponentially more because of the limited distance the signals can travel" Lets unpack this: 1) there is and has been lots of modelling to work out if the frequency bands are viable for business. 2) Where on the exponential curve is it? double? Quadruple? don't use terms that one clearly d…

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz. Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

You are bathed in lots of RF everyday. However its almost entirely background noise.

Buy a field strength meter have a look. Most exposure is either from the universe, or a multitude of unknown sources

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#127

Post by hexane360 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #124
nashashmi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you can't measure doesn't exist ... Until it is discovered! I can feel Bluetooth waves!

You should talk to the James Randi Educational Foundation about that ( http://web.randi.org/ ). Depending on how their rules are structured, the ability to detect Bluetooth emissions might qualify for the $1M prize that they offer for a repeatable, controlled demonstration of paranormal effects.

That prize was officially terminated in 2015.

http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#128

Post by benshell »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #98
piker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are worried about 5G, why the fuck do you use Wifi? wifi is both 2.4 ghz, and 5 ghz. Assuming one chooses to use Wifi in one's home, perhaps the criticism is still valid because such choice is just that--a choice. By contrast, one is forced to expose oneself to radio waves legally propagating in public spaces.

I'm conflicted about this, because on the one hand, people should have a choice about things that happen to them. On the other hand, if you let them, you get things like this, or anti-vaccination movements. What can one do?

Nothing is more important than medical freedom. You're welcome to vaccinate--you have that right--but vaccines have been proven to be unsafe for many. The federal government has paid $3.6 billion to compensate, and that's after they've denied most claims (those without undeniable proof it was the fault of the vaccine).

Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)

#129

Post by KaiserPro »

zeep wrote: post #123
KaiserPro wrote: post #84

"It’s unclear how many smaller base stations would be needed for 5G service. But it’s widely believed that there would need to be exponentially more because of the limited distance the signals can travel" Lets unpack this: 1) there is and has been lots of modelling to work out if the frequency bands are viable for business. 2) Where on the exponential curve is it? double? Quadruple? don't use terms that one clearly d…

Home routers are very limited in transmission power ... the cell towers probably not as much...

Inverse Square law says that this isn't a fair comparison
Post reply on HN