Interestingly, this is apparently a story that a lot of Russian troll farms are pushing hard at the moment.
5G will likely increase IPv6 penetration, resulting in more stuff with public IP's, resulting in more stuff with ancient unpatched software vulnerable to attack. Why would Russia argue against technology that would allow cyber warfare on an unprecedented scale?
Bold of you to assume that that ancient software doesn't have some hardcoded IPv4.
I wonder if moving to IPv6 will in fact mean more cyberwarfare.
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 must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal Cancer rates are rising and we're not sure why. Is that acceptable?
A lot of cancer rates rising is pollution, but we generally believe most of it is chemical forms of pollution, not electromagnetic.
That said, I am sure there are structures in the body that can selective absorb or react to non-ionizing radiation that we may not yet know about. Our cellular mechanisms are impressively complex.
> HV power lines are, in an electrical sense, very far away from you I've seen family houses literally next to high tension poles (not just regular poles, I mean those huge ones many times the height of the house), for example in Portugal. I don't see any definitive conclusion online for the link between high voltage lines proximity and cancer, but I am not an expert. Seems to me the consensus is far from general.
In the US there is usually a discount on houses bordering those. So the market sees a small difference.
The market is happy to sustain homeopathy and fake Faraday cages for your microwave-based electric and gas meters. Radium used to fetch a high price for its health "benefits"...
For others (like me) to whom the name is unfamiliar: He is a wifi / cell phone radiation "truther" who thinks the EMF in everyday devices causes cancer https://www.acsh.org/news/2007/02/16/cell-phone-dangers-stil... After reading his ideas, I think we should all feel a little lucky that Trump hasn't made hime the head of the FCC. edit: posting as primary reply, because the point is important, but was downvoted becaus…
Is it just me or are all the links people are posting in this thread to debunk this scientist from the same domain? I hadn't heard of ACSH, so checked their about page: > a pro-science consumer advocacy organization A consumer advocacy org. Not a scientific research council, as —I would argue—their name highly implies. Their about page also says: > We do not represent any industry. We were created to be the science a…
Good catch! Seems that everyone posting links to ACSH is more interested in shooting the messenger than actual science.
As far as I know the exposure is a bit like a bell curve. Right besides the tower you're in a blind spot, then it gets more intense as you move out of the blind spot and then it gets lower as you move further away.
5G requires more towers, closer to their end users. To quote the article: > 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.
Isn't the amount of radiation you receive from the towers tiny in comparison to the radiation of your phone?
The sun is way worse than 5G. Saddens me for the academic world to see such study / or see an argument based on a number of “scientists” instead of an argument of quality.
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.…
The scientists' appeal, including a list of signatories and their affiliations, isn't hard to find by following links. https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal Likewise for a list of relevant papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl... Is Harvard Medical School an institution you recognize and trust? Columbia? Monash? McGill? Can we dispense with the tired ad hominems and ta…
Five out of five signers from my country are well-known EHS proponents, and at least three have financial ties to the illness. Having a Ph.D. degree from a well-known university does little to prevent later involvement in quackery.
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…
I've coined the term "orchard picking" for this. If the subject is climate or vaccines, most people will yell "learn the facts" and "follow the science" and generally act as though dissenters deserve every ounce of contempt we can pour on them. On those topics I generally agree, except maybe for that last part. But somehow on other topics - e.g. most discussions of programmer productivity or effects of technology - it's all "meh, here's my anecdote instead" and other forms of pseudo-skepticism. There I tend to break from the crowd. I believe science is a mode of thought, not just another rhetorical club to pick up when it's convenient and set down again when it's not.
I spend a lot of time in public transport, and on internet in general. I never paid for 3G or 4G on my smartphone. Only wifi. OSMAnd for maps, etc. 5G is also pretty bad for the environment (netflix, instagram, snapchat are also pretty awful). The amount of energy and resources you need to make all those electronic is gigantic, not to mention the lifespan of a smartphones is so short, smartphones vendors are now tryi…
How exactly are they "bad for the environment"? Would you prefer we revert to manufacturing plastic VHS tapes, then distribute them by diesel trucks like we used to in the good old days? Would you prefer people get their morning news on broadsheets made from the bleached pulp of rainforest trees? Or would you like to go back to the good old days of AM radio when the inadequacy of the receiver electronics was compensa…
How much water does it take to purify the silicon used in your phone?
5G will likely increase IPv6 penetration, resulting in more stuff with public IP's, resulting in more stuff with ancient unpatched software vulnerable to attack. Why would Russia argue against technology that would allow cyber warfare on an unprecedented scale?
Bold of you to assume that that ancient software doesn't have some hardcoded IPv4. I wonder if moving to IPv6 will in fact mean more cyberwarfare.
More specifically, I meant the ancient software of the future -- not the stuff that's ancient today. I am convinced that IOT + a large-scale acceptance of IPv6 will result in the Internet being one big battleground.