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

New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

androidpit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#61

Post by freyr »

grecy wrote: post #36
freyr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But those mmWaves for 5G are much higher frequency, and they get absorbed by more materials 4G is on the order of 10^9 Hz (1 GHz), and 5G is on the order of 10^10 - 10^11 Hz. Both are non-ionizing radiation, and in the overall scheme of things, relatively close in frequency. Ionizing radiation causes cell mutation. It starts with UV radiation at 10^16 Hz. X-rays are around 10^18 Hz. We can't say with certainty that…

You know the World Health Organization lists cell phones as "Possibly Causing Cancer in Humans" right? That's the world's leading authority on human health saying that. I don't care that technically speaking cell phones "can't" cause cancer because they are thought to be non-ionizing. That's just the same as all the other things in history that have been impossible until they've been done.

They're not "thought" to be non-ionizing. They are non-ionizing.

Could there be some other mechanism that we don't understand yet and haven't observed yet that could be harmful? Yes, of course. But nobody has been able to provide any evidence yet.

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#62

Post by adrianN »

freyr wrote: post #60
adrianN wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly sure that cell phones are mostly harmless, but the argument that the radiation is not ionizing is a poor one. We know that tissue absorbs some of the radiation, with a fairly strong dependence on the frequency. Biological systems are messy and poorly understood and I find it plausible that slightly wiggling the molecules around disturbs some reaction pathway or other. Given the prevalence of cell phones th…

Cellular radiation is tested very thoroughly. So far, the only observed effect is a slight thermal effect at very high received power, as we'd expect. We can't prove it's completely safe, but nobody yet has been able to demonstrate any compelling evidence that it's unsafe.

Yeah, those experiments are why I'm pretty sure that cellphones are safe.

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#63

Post by gsich »

balp wrote: post #42
gsich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Above 20GHz you mean.

Microwave oven is about 2.45 GHz, and I agree it's not optimal for heating water. But the middle of the free 2.4GHz to 2.5GHz band.

yes, but it has nothing to do with a resonance frequency.

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#65

Post by grecy »

Google234 wrote: post #53
grecy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the World Health Organization lists cell phones as "Possibly Causing Cancer in Humans" right? That's the world's leading authority on human health saying that. I don't care that technically speaking cell phones "can't" cause cancer because they are thought to be non-ionizing. That's just the same as all the other things in history that have been impossible until they've been done.

From your perspective, I suppose everything is possibly carcinogenic since you don't care about whether technically speaking something "can't" cause cancer. I would give more credibility to the numerous scientific studies that have look at this than the words (that could be applied to literally anything) of some working group associated with The WHO. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electrom...

Give that cancer rates in the developed world are skyrocketing (>50% of people will have caner in my lifetime), but that everything is "safe", yes, I'm more than a little skeptical.

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#66

Post by RappingBoomer »

brunoTbear wrote: post #19

What I want to know is who is behind the 5G fear-mongering. I see this all the time and from different places. My poor conspiracy-minded elderly uncle in western Pennsylvania has been had by Fox News and the rest of the insane-right. He sends me stuff like this all the time. What I want to understand is who stands to benefit from 5G not coming to pass. Is it a just one of many conspiracy theories cooked by a Kremlin…

same here...whenever I see a lot of fear mongering flying around about something new, I ask myself what iron rice bowl is being threatened by such new things? In this case, I would guess that comcast, et al is being threatened by 5g...

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#67

Post by RappingBoomer »

davesque wrote: post #31

It seems odd to me that there are so many anti-5G stories. It almost comes off as deliberate and targeted. I would imagine that the science of what levels and frequencies of EM radiation are safe is settled.

yeah, this level of fearmongering almost certainly means that some huge business(es) is having its business model threatened by 5g...is it the ISPs that are being threatened by 5g?

Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects

#68

Post by Google234 »

grecy wrote: post #65
Google234 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your perspective, I suppose everything is possibly carcinogenic since you don't care about whether technically speaking something "can't" cause cancer. I would give more credibility to the numerous scientific studies that have look at this than the words (that could be applied to literally anything) of some working group associated with The WHO. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electrom...

Give that cancer rates in the developed world are skyrocketing (>50% of people will have caner in my lifetime), but that everything is "safe", yes, I'm more than a little skeptical.

Except for the fact that this isn't true. "Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006‐2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007‐2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21551

Most of the increase has come from our increased life expectancy since getting cancer is very strongly linked with age. Lifestyle choices have also contributed. An aging population and greater detection will result in more cancer cases.

Post reply on HN