6 ms·

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

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.

mcguire 7y ago
Trash on the streets is fairly difficult to fix, without authoritarianism or major cultural change.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  In my experience a clean public space tends to stay clean even without outside input, while trash leads to more trash. Apparently people feel more guilty for making a clean place dirty than for making a dirty place a bit dirtier. Thus a good way to fix trash on the streets is to pay people to clean it up, and after a short while you can get clean streets with a very moderate level of cleaning effort.
- dekhn 7y ago
  When I visited amsterdam I saw little or no trash. After watching a while, I noticed they have guys with little witches brooms cleaning everywhere (it was really interesting to watch, turns out they used to use more modern ones but they don't work as well), followed by street cleaners. The little brooms made all the difference, ferreting out all the half-cloaked garbage dropped by tourists. Seems completely routine and normal and not authoritarian.
mrtksn 7y ago
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 and totally safe, some people might think that 4G works just fine so let's not risk it. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355680
- laHiesh1 7y ago
  People say a lot of things and people are not perfect, they are susceptible to bias and manipulation. So until someone provides some peer reviewed evidence showing that there is a causal link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis then I'm going to call it a moral panic. On another note, I would be open to the possibility that Satan is real and is the cause behind cancer if and only if the proper evidence is provided.
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    That’s OK as long as you don’t stage a coup to install 5G network, launch a smear campaign to discredit public figures, create a violent terrorist organization, build a lair and orchestrate covert take over of the institutions that deal with the issue :)
  - wavepruner 7y ago
    The history of environmental illness epidemics is chock full of people in power with this attitude. A new technology is poorly understood technology. The lack of peer reviewed research does not prove that it's safe, either.
    - laHiesh1 7y ago
      I'm going to need some citations there, you're saying the effects of radio waves on the human body is a subject that hasn't received much attention despite being heavily scrutinized since radio communications become a thing. The cancer scare from radio waves has being going on for significantly longer than you seem to realise and yet has yielded no evidence to suggest there is a casual link between radio wave exposure and cancer. How much longer will you bash your head against the wall hoping it will get results? I have no problem studying the effects of new products and technologies before being released to the general public. After all, I like knowing my drugs aren't likely to harm me. The difference here is radio wave exposure has being a subject studied to death and nothing of note has being found. Simply because you believe something to be true or could be true does not award you the right to make the assertion that it's true. Go get the evidence and bring something new to the table instead of torturing everyone involved with this nonsense.
sosilkj 7y ago
"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 suggests that they're safe? edit edit: my apology if the phrase 'knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists' rubbed anyone the wrong way. just being snarky but perhaps wasn't helpful to the conversation.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Where are the studies proving anything is completely without-a-doubt 100% safe? Painting a wall a novel color is a new, unstudied EM radiation exposure.
- laHiesh1 7y ago
  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.
  - sosilkj 7y ago
    Thanks. I have better understanding of where you're coming from now.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "Assume safety until shown otherwise" has not always been the best option in the past. ("Assume safety and viscously attack anyone who suggests otherwise" has some advantages, though.)
    - laHiesh1 7y ago
      I'm not proposing our default position should be to assume safety until proven otherwise. I'm proposing that if one wishes to claim something is not safe which is counter to existing scientific literature then one needs to provide the proper evidence. I'm not willing to easily discard existing literature on the basis of what someone said.

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.

mcguire 7y ago

Trash on the streets is fairly difficult to fix, without authoritarianism or major cultural change.

wongarsu 7y ago
In my experience a clean public space tends to stay clean even without outside input, while trash leads to more trash. Apparently people feel more guilty for making a clean place dirty than for making a dirty place a bit dirtier. Thus a good way to fix trash on the streets is to pay people to clean it up, and after a short while you can get clean streets with a very moderate level of cleaning effort.
dekhn 7y ago
When I visited amsterdam I saw little or no trash. After watching a while, I noticed they have guys with little witches brooms cleaning everywhere (it was really interesting to watch, turns out they used to use more modern ones but they don't work as well), followed by street cleaners. The little brooms made all the difference, ferreting out all the half-cloaked garbage dropped by tourists. Seems completely routine and normal and not authoritarian.

mrtksn 7y ago

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 and totally safe, some people might think that 4G works just fine so let's not risk it. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18355680

laHiesh1 7y ago
People say a lot of things and people are not perfect, they are susceptible to bias and manipulation. So until someone provides some peer reviewed evidence showing that there is a causal link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis then I'm going to call it a moral panic. On another note, I would be open to the possibility that Satan is real and is the cause behind cancer if and only if the proper evidence is provided.
- mrtksn 7y ago
  That’s OK as long as you don’t stage a coup to install 5G network, launch a smear campaign to discredit public figures, create a violent terrorist organization, build a lair and orchestrate covert take over of the institutions that deal with the issue :)
- wavepruner 7y ago
  The history of environmental illness epidemics is chock full of people in power with this attitude. A new technology is poorly understood technology. The lack of peer reviewed research does not prove that it's safe, either.
  - laHiesh1 7y ago
    I'm going to need some citations there, you're saying the effects of radio waves on the human body is a subject that hasn't received much attention despite being heavily scrutinized since radio communications become a thing. The cancer scare from radio waves has being going on for significantly longer than you seem to realise and yet has yielded no evidence to suggest there is a casual link between radio wave exposure and cancer. How much longer will you bash your head against the wall hoping it will get results? I have no problem studying the effects of new products and technologies before being released to the general public. After all, I like knowing my drugs aren't likely to harm me. The difference here is radio wave exposure has being a subject studied to death and nothing of note has being found. Simply because you believe something to be true or could be true does not award you the right to make the assertion that it's true. Go get the evidence and bring something new to the table instead of torturing everyone involved with this nonsense.

sosilkj 7y ago

"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 suggests that they're safe? edit edit: my apology if the phrase 'knee-jerk reaction amongst the armchair epistomologists' rubbed anyone the wrong way. just being snarky but perhaps wasn't helpful to the conversation.

closeparen 7y ago
Where are the studies proving anything is completely without-a-doubt 100% safe? Painting a wall a novel color is a new, unstudied EM radiation exposure.
laHiesh1 7y ago
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.
- sosilkj 7y ago
  Thanks. I have better understanding of where you're coming from now.
- mcguire 7y ago
  "Assume safety until shown otherwise" has not always been the best option in the past. ("Assume safety and viscously attack anyone who suggests otherwise" has some advantages, though.)
  - laHiesh1 7y ago
    I'm not proposing our default position should be to assume safety until proven otherwise. I'm proposing that if one wishes to claim something is not safe which is counter to existing scientific literature then one needs to provide the proper evidence. I'm not willing to easily discard existing literature on the basis of what someone said.