28 ms·

My neighborhood Nextdoor is full of NIMBY on this topic. Apparently electrosensitivity afflicts some 90-95% of people who have the free time to go to city counc

My neighborhood Nextdoor is full of NIMBY on this topic. Apparently electrosensitivity afflicts some 90-95% of people who have the free time to go to city council meetings at 3pm on weekdays. Shungite pendants have been recommended to fend off the illnesses caused by radiation. Even the local school does not have wifi because some local bozo said his kids were "injured" by EM fields, not just any fields but specifically ISM wavelengths that are tuned to disrupt our precious cells. I'd be frankly surprised if urban America ever gets 5G service while this kind of ignorance holds sway.

Severian 9y ago
I hate these idiots. I got into an argument with one who was concerned with the RF from their smart electric meter. I tried to explain the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing, DNA 'damage', and such. No such luck getting through to them even when presented with scientific fact. I usually tell them they should be more concerned with sun exposure than anything, if they are worried about DNA damage. It's like they want a handy excuse for feeling like crap. Superstitious magical thinking. 300 years ago they'd be blaming a witch for their problems. I always think of the character Chuck from Better Call Saul whenever I run into someone like this.
- tzs 9y ago
  There are a couple of known mechanisms by which non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be dangerous to biological systems. One is by heating of tissue caused by absorption of EM radiation. This one can probably be safely ignored in almost all normal situations. Another is by inducing currents and fields in parts of the organism which could disrupt normal operation. For example, DNA is conductive, and its shape makes it act like a fractal antenna which is good at allowing a wide range of EM radiation to induce currents in it [1]. Damage and errors in the DNA can change the conductivity, and there are some researchers who think that the cell may use this as part of the mechanism that detects and deals with such damage. Induced currents from an external EM wave could cause such a mechanism to miss some damage, and so fail to detect and kill a cell that normally would have been eliminated. Here's an article that talks briefly about some of this [2]. As far as I know it is still just speculation that the cell uses changes in conduction to detect damage. It's a plausible mechanism, but that doesn't mean it is the only possible mechanism or the one nature actually uses. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 [2] https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-chemist-jacqueline-barton-honored-national-medal-science-1723 https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-chemist-jacqueline-bart...
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    Thank you for posting this!
  - wbl 9y ago
    There is a basic physical issue here. For an EM wave to induce any sort of voltage difference across the length of a DNA molecule it would have have a wavelength on the order of that molecule's size.
    - jcims 9y ago
      Uncoiled, DNA is about 2m long. Hmmm, better not get that kilowatt kicker amp for my baofeng.
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        Coiled up in a bag of salt water, it's not going to be a very good antenna...
Stratoscope 9y ago
Nextdoor can be interesting. One of our neighbors posted a photo of "chemtrails" and explained her worries about the military jets that are pumping this poison into our skies. She asked if anyone had noticed the particular "X marks the spot" pattern that the chemtrails made that day targeting our neighborhood. I said that our area (SF Peninsula) has major north-south and east-west airline traffic routes overhead, so it would not be surprising to see an occasional "X" pattern in the sky. I also mentioned that the trails in her photo actually looked like formations of crystalline dihydrogen monoxide, and I provided a helpful link to http://dhmo.org/ http://dhmo.org/ where she could learn more about DHMO. She thanked me for the post and started citing some of the information from the DHMO FAQ in her subsequent comments!
- fapjacks 9y ago
  Nextdoor is a brazen display of all the stupid things you hope your neighbors aren't into. And you can't even use Nextdoor to help you "shop" for the right neighborhood. You can only join after you've moved. They'll only show you the naked insanity once you've committed.
rdiddly 9y ago
Technology and "progress" are never without problems or externalities. And residents of MBY are the ones who deserve the right of self-determination regarding said BY. Including evaluating whether they are going to get proportionally enough benefit from a project to justify the costs they will inevitably bear from having it situated there. They have a right to be suspicious of EM radiation, or even downright superstitious. But what about the mere fact that it's simply an ugly-ass tower? Maybe they're just fine with 4G or even 3G service and they're like "no thanks." So your challenge is, how do you present the value proposition in any non-condescending and convincing way? If you don't agree with their reasons, fine, but then it's up to you to make an honest go of persuading them, and if they still don't go for it, oh well. Maybe try building it in your own BY. But the arrogance represented by your viewpoint is not going to win any battles or friends. "Oh my mistake, thank you so much for educating me!" is what nobody will say ever. They can be arrogant too, just as easily. And stubborn.
- rayiner 9y ago
  You don’t bother. You move to a neighborhood where people mind their own business and don’t mind a little infrastructure (or the occasional non-functioning auto) in their back yards.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  The problem with the term NIMBY is that it isn't really about anyone's back yard. It's about people who live somewhere trying to control what happens on nearby property. You are trying to have it both ways by talking about both externalities and "self-determination regarding said BY". The latter makes if you are only "saying respect property" rights: let people have as many voodoo charms and do as crystal-power-empathetic-gardening as they like. But if you say that their complaints can override the rights of others because of externalities, then there must be a rational case about about those externalities. Harm from radio waves doesn't have much rational case behind it.
  - rdiddly 9y ago
    "Back yard" is a figure of speech, just like it is in the acronym. The people of X should determine what happens in X, where X can be <land parcel>, <neighborhood>, <city>, <state> or <nation>. However as you can imagine, there are going to be conflicts between what the people of a larger entity want vs. what the people of a smaller contained entity want. The interests of the people of <state> might conflict with the interests of the people of <land parcel> for example. So it gets murky fast. I happen to think we should try to err in favor of the smaller entity. Which takes care of a couple of problems: It satisfies property rights as you're saying. And it prevents a small entity from forcing its will on another comparably small entity by appealing to the larger entity that contains them both, which it sounds like you're also concerned about. But the impact scope needs to be properly defined. Erring in favor of the smaller entity means you define the scope as small as possible. But to remain fair, go no smaller. For one of these towers, the scope of impact is probably <neighborhood>. That's how wide its transmit/receive radius will be (smaller than today's towers), and that's probably also how far you'll have to go until that particular tower isn't visible (which isn't a rational argument by the way, but an aesthetic one, probably lost on anyone born after 1990 and accustomed to seeing shitty towers everywhere). My point wasn't the merits of any particular argument; I only brought that up to shock someone into realizing people can have contrary opinions, including for no good reason, and if you want to persuade them you have to meet them where they are, just like if you were selling a product to a customer.
Aloha 9y ago
I know some people are sensitive to RF radiation - I know I am, but generally only when the measured field strength is well outside of 'safe' bounds ;-) Show me double-blind testing of someone being able to accurately pin point an access point or cell site however, and I've got a job for them.
CalRobert 9y ago
Wait until they find out particulate air pollution can do! Or am I correct in guessing they haven't worried about the obvious large risks present already in everyday life?

Severian 9y ago

I hate these idiots. I got into an argument with one who was concerned with the RF from their smart electric meter. I tried to explain the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing, DNA 'damage', and such. No such luck getting through to them even when presented with scientific fact. I usually tell them they should be more concerned with sun exposure than anything, if they are worried about DNA damage. It's like they want a handy excuse for feeling like crap. Superstitious magical thinking. 300 years ago they'd be blaming a witch for their problems. I always think of the character Chuck from Better Call Saul whenever I run into someone like this.

tzs 9y ago
There are a couple of known mechanisms by which non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be dangerous to biological systems. One is by heating of tissue caused by absorption of EM radiation. This one can probably be safely ignored in almost all normal situations. Another is by inducing currents and fields in parts of the organism which could disrupt normal operation. For example, DNA is conductive, and its shape makes it act like a fractal antenna which is good at allowing a wide range of EM radiation to induce currents in it [1]. Damage and errors in the DNA can change the conductivity, and there are some researchers who think that the cell may use this as part of the mechanism that detects and deals with such damage. Induced currents from an external EM wave could cause such a mechanism to miss some damage, and so fail to detect and kill a cell that normally would have been eliminated. Here's an article that talks briefly about some of this [2]. As far as I know it is still just speculation that the cell uses changes in conduction to detect damage. It's a plausible mechanism, but that doesn't mean it is the only possible mechanism or the one nature actually uses. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 [2] https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-chemist-jacqueline-barton-honored-national-medal-science-1723 https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-chemist-jacqueline-bart...
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  Thank you for posting this!
- wbl 9y ago
  There is a basic physical issue here. For an EM wave to induce any sort of voltage difference across the length of a DNA molecule it would have have a wavelength on the order of that molecule's size.
  - jcims 9y ago
    Uncoiled, DNA is about 2m long. Hmmm, better not get that kilowatt kicker amp for my baofeng.
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      Coiled up in a bag of salt water, it's not going to be a very good antenna...

Stratoscope 9y ago

Nextdoor can be interesting. One of our neighbors posted a photo of "chemtrails" and explained her worries about the military jets that are pumping this poison into our skies. She asked if anyone had noticed the particular "X marks the spot" pattern that the chemtrails made that day targeting our neighborhood. I said that our area (SF Peninsula) has major north-south and east-west airline traffic routes overhead, so it would not be surprising to see an occasional "X" pattern in the sky. I also mentioned that the trails in her photo actually looked like formations of crystalline dihydrogen monoxide, and I provided a helpful link to http://dhmo.org/ http://dhmo.org/ where she could learn more about DHMO. She thanked me for the post and started citing some of the information from the DHMO FAQ in her subsequent comments!

fapjacks 9y ago
Nextdoor is a brazen display of all the stupid things you hope your neighbors aren't into. And you can't even use Nextdoor to help you "shop" for the right neighborhood. You can only join after you've moved. They'll only show you the naked insanity once you've committed.

rdiddly 9y ago

Technology and "progress" are never without problems or externalities. And residents of MBY are the ones who deserve the right of self-determination regarding said BY. Including evaluating whether they are going to get proportionally enough benefit from a project to justify the costs they will inevitably bear from having it situated there. They have a right to be suspicious of EM radiation, or even downright superstitious. But what about the mere fact that it's simply an ugly-ass tower? Maybe they're just fine with 4G or even 3G service and they're like "no thanks." So your challenge is, how do you present the value proposition in any non-condescending and convincing way? If you don't agree with their reasons, fine, but then it's up to you to make an honest go of persuading them, and if they still don't go for it, oh well. Maybe try building it in your own BY. But the arrogance represented by your viewpoint is not going to win any battles or friends. "Oh my mistake, thank you so much for educating me!" is what nobody will say ever. They can be arrogant too, just as easily. And stubborn.

rayiner 9y ago
You don’t bother. You move to a neighborhood where people mind their own business and don’t mind a little infrastructure (or the occasional non-functioning auto) in their back yards.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
The problem with the term NIMBY is that it isn't really about anyone's back yard. It's about people who live somewhere trying to control what happens on nearby property. You are trying to have it both ways by talking about both externalities and "self-determination regarding said BY". The latter makes if you are only "saying respect property" rights: let people have as many voodoo charms and do as crystal-power-empathetic-gardening as they like. But if you say that their complaints can override the rights of others because of externalities, then there must be a rational case about about those externalities. Harm from radio waves doesn't have much rational case behind it.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  "Back yard" is a figure of speech, just like it is in the acronym. The people of X should determine what happens in X, where X can be <land parcel>, <neighborhood>, <city>, <state> or <nation>. However as you can imagine, there are going to be conflicts between what the people of a larger entity want vs. what the people of a smaller contained entity want. The interests of the people of <state> might conflict with the interests of the people of <land parcel> for example. So it gets murky fast. I happen to think we should try to err in favor of the smaller entity. Which takes care of a couple of problems: It satisfies property rights as you're saying. And it prevents a small entity from forcing its will on another comparably small entity by appealing to the larger entity that contains them both, which it sounds like you're also concerned about. But the impact scope needs to be properly defined. Erring in favor of the smaller entity means you define the scope as small as possible. But to remain fair, go no smaller. For one of these towers, the scope of impact is probably <neighborhood>. That's how wide its transmit/receive radius will be (smaller than today's towers), and that's probably also how far you'll have to go until that particular tower isn't visible (which isn't a rational argument by the way, but an aesthetic one, probably lost on anyone born after 1990 and accustomed to seeing shitty towers everywhere). My point wasn't the merits of any particular argument; I only brought that up to shock someone into realizing people can have contrary opinions, including for no good reason, and if you want to persuade them you have to meet them where they are, just like if you were selling a product to a customer.

Aloha 9y ago

I know some people are sensitive to RF radiation - I know I am, but generally only when the measured field strength is well outside of 'safe' bounds ;-) Show me double-blind testing of someone being able to accurately pin point an access point or cell site however, and I've got a job for them.

CalRobert 9y ago

Wait until they find out particulate air pollution can do! Or am I correct in guessing they haven't worried about the obvious large risks present already in everyday life?