Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it seems like they might be neglecting issues that are affecting their constituents health (potentially easy to fix by the sounds of it) and focusing on the current fashionable moral panic.
Well, that's up to voters to decide. Maybe Brusellians don't mind some trash on the streets as much as new tech's potential hazards. It's not too long ago since establishing a link between cancer and EM Radiation[0]. You say that it's fashionable moral panic but some people may say that an increase in cancer is not worth fashionable network tech investment. Just as you might think that this 5G thingy is a must have a…
Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
61–70 of 144 posts
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it seems like they might be neglecting issues that are affecting their constituents health (potentially easy to fix by the sounds of it) and focusing on the current fashionable moral panic.
"fashionable moral panic" Would you be able to share some scientific research that supports the idea that the proposed antennas are completely, without-a-doubt safe? (I assume that's what you're implying by your statment.) Edit: ok, forget that I used the words 'completely' and 'without-a-doubt' which causes a knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists here. How about just evidence in general that sugges…
Painting a wall a novel color is a new, unstudied EM radiation exposure.
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#63I live in Brussels, internet over 4G works great and nobody complains about it being slow. I am willing to change my mind if somebody proves why we need to upgrade but (and as much as I love new tech) "if ain't broken dont touch it", if anything just make it cheaper.
Its a good point plus upgrading to 5g will require purchasing new smartphones so it can be quite a costly affair for the consumer.
I'm not sure which consumers you're worried about here but it's likely not any real consumers.
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the features of 5G is support for high-frequency (30 GHz+), high-bandwidth, small cell networks. Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type.
> Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type. I am a software researcher in the field and I do not think this is the case. Most 5G deployments for the foreseeable future will be on 3.5Ghz. I do not think mmWave (30Ghz+) has been accepted for commercial use in any country. In fact, in many roadmaps mmWave is referred to as 5G NR (new radio), which to my understanding was left for later deployments. T…
RF bands 5G: n261 (27.5-28.35 GHz); n260 (37-40 GHz)
4G: B2, B4, B5, B13, B46, B48, B66
Verizon launched 5G New Radio (Nonstandalone) at 28 GHz with 400 megahertz of TDD spectrum — which doesn’t include the LTE anchor carrier, SRG said. Based on its initial survey, the firm estimated that there are close to 100 5G nodes in downtown Minneapolis, although it had yet to confirm how many of those were on-air. Each node has two Ericsson AIR 5121 5G radios, according to SRG.
https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/moto-5g#specs
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20190405/test-and-measurement/pu...
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it seems like they might be neglecting issues that are affecting their constituents health (potentially easy to fix by the sounds of it) and focusing on the current fashionable moral panic.
"fashionable moral panic" Would you be able to share some scientific research that supports the idea that the proposed antennas are completely, without-a-doubt safe? (I assume that's what you're implying by your statment.) Edit: ok, forget that I used the words 'completely' and 'without-a-doubt' which causes a knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists here. How about just evidence in general that sugges…
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the equivalent idea applied to vaccines gets us measles outbreaks. Anyone can "Just Ask Questions" about anything: You don't need to know anything, you don't need to have a coherent theory of your own, you just need to bury the people trying to do something in questions which can be answered by a simple review of what's already known.
The problem is that I haven’t seen safety studies, and the null hypothesis is that a technology is mildly unsafe: most of the neat science technologies have been. The reasoning of “its not ionizing radiation so it can’t possibly impact biological systems at continuous low, structured doses!” wouldn’t pass in an advanced high school class — so it’s deeply concerning that’s what underlies the safety of a widespread tec…
And that last point highlights one of the major gripes I have with research of this kind. "Statistically significant" does not mean what you think it means. A lot of people see it as a license to draw conclusions from a set of numbers, which it isn't. Remember that even the standard p-test has an absurdly high cut-off of 5% chance that the data is pure randomness. And even then, even if some divine oracle rejects your null, you still have to deal with the fact that intrinsic error in research is still pretty much impossible to quantify. There's a reason that in particle physics they don't consider something truly proven unless there's a five-sigma confidence.
The fact that so many of these health studies show no hope of ever reaching a five-sigma confidence interval, only confidently proves one thing to me: whatever harmful or benevolent effect it is they're studying, its harm or benefit isn't going to be significant. Biological systems are just too unpredictable to make sweeping statements about the harm or benefit of many, many things. Even ionising radiation, the one thing we can all agree is super harmful in significant doses, becomes equally harmless in background-level doses.
So in the absence of reliability of single studies on cell phone radiation harm, I have to fall back on the next best thing: meta studies. And given that the overwhelming majority of research fails to establish a link, and the significance argument I made earlier, makes me very carefree and comfortable about the phone that sleeps right next to my head every day.
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
"fashionable moral panic" Would you be able to share some scientific research that supports the idea that the proposed antennas are completely, without-a-doubt safe? (I assume that's what you're implying by your statment.) Edit: ok, forget that I used the words 'completely' and 'without-a-doubt' which causes a knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists here. How about just evidence in general that sugges…
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.
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most(?) of the 5G deployments are planned to be of this type. I am a software researcher in the field and I do not think this is the case. Most 5G deployments for the foreseeable future will be on 3.5Ghz. I do not think mmWave (30Ghz+) has been accepted for commercial use in any country. In fact, in many roadmaps mmWave is referred to as 5G NR (new radio), which to my understanding was left for later deployments. T…
5G NR is already available in the US on Verizon with a Moto Mod RF bands 5G: n261 (27.5-28.35 GHz); n260 (37-40 GHz) 4G: B2, B4, B5, B13, B46, B48, B66 Verizon launched 5G New Radio (Nonstandalone) at 28 GHz with 400 megahertz of TDD spectrum — which doesn’t include the LTE anchor carrier, SRG said. Based on its initial survey, the firm estimated that there are close to 100 5G nodes in downtown Minneapolis, although…
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will discontinue all the older networks? I can run my new device from this year old good old 2G if I want to. I don't think you are correct in this.
Who still operates 2G networks? It's not at all profitable to use such spectrum-inefficient tech in any area that has enough density of customers to warrant running a cell tower in the first place. 3G networks are starting to be phased out already, because upgrading radios is cheaper than acquiring spectrum that's currently allocated to incumbent non-cellular uses—and holdouts running obsolete phones aren't numerous…
4G sucks at coverage and handset count is nowhere near enough to justify 4G hardware and power consumption in most places.
3G yes, it sort of fell through between 2G and 4G - smaller coverage compared to 2G, smaller data throughput compared to 4G.
Re: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but it seems like they might be neglecting issues that are affecting their constituents health (potentially easy to fix by the sounds of it) and focusing on the current fashionable moral panic.
Well, that's up to voters to decide. Maybe Brusellians don't mind some trash on the streets as much as new tech's potential hazards. It's not too long ago since establishing a link between cancer and EM Radiation[0]. You say that it's fashionable moral panic but some people may say that an increase in cancer is not worth fashionable network tech investment. Just as you might think that this 5G thingy is a must have a…