10 ms·

Has anyone done a deep dive on 5g health concerns? E.g., 240-some scientists and 40 doctors signed a letter of discouragement (or something), claims research in

Has anyone done a deep dive on 5g health concerns? E.g., 240-some scientists and 40 doctors signed a letter of discouragement (or something), claims research indicates 5g interacts with human biology in poorly understood ways: https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/ https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networ...

leroy_masochist 7y ago
Paging Dr. Allcome.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOovtZXYqj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOovtZXYqj4
Dylan16807 7y ago
Some of those items on the list are sending up red flags to me. The weapon use is purely because it heats skin; if you apply a million times less energy for a million times as long, the danger level from heat is zero. When it can't penetrate skin, it does make sense to classify head skin exposure the same as foot skin exposure. The thing about sweat glands is interesting. And sadly I have no idea how to evaluate the quality of the studies linked.
xxpor 7y ago
It's all nonsense. The higher frequencies are non-ionizing and in common use today. See all of those microwave antennas on buildings and towers? A lot of them transmit around there. Your neighbor can blast 24 ghz right at your house with a free licence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.2-centimeter_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.2-centimeter_band The reason microwaves (like from a microwave oven) are dangerous are because of their power levels. Like, they'd cook you if they leaked out. Not because of ionizing radiation.
- throwaway995669 7y ago
  Non-ionizing radiation does have potential biological effects on Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels (VGCCs) which our cells have plenty of: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    Not when immersed in a giant bag of salt water.
- lima 7y ago
  > Like, they'd cook you if they leaked out. Nope, they wouldn't. The standing wave would break down as soon as it left the enclosure. It would still be a potentially harmful amount of radiation, but not like that. And no, 24 GHz is not in common use. It's used for special applications, mostly highly directional tower-to-tower links (I have one sitting on my roof for a high-bandwidth HAM radio link). With 5G, it will be ubiquitous in an unprecedented way. We've already seen plenty of interference with 5 GHz. Of course, there's a lot of fearmongering whenever RF radiation is involved, but there are genuine safety concerns. Source: HAM radio operator
  - xxpor 7y ago
    >Nope, they wouldn't. The standing wave would break down as soon as it left the enclosure. It would still be a potentially harmful amount of radiation, but not like that. Yeah that's a good point >And no, 24 GHz is not in common use. It's used for special applications, mostly highly directional tower-to-tower links (I have one sitting on my roof for a high-bandwidth HAM radio link). That's what I mean by common use. Omnidirectional antennas aren't in common use.
  - torqueTorrent 7y ago
    In school, we used to learn about the RF service technicians returning with stories of dead birds and other such phantasmagoria in and around the sweet spots of the feedhorn, antenna, transmission line, transmitter or other such sensitive areas of high power microwave operations. Professor also admonished us that such technicians must always be infinitely certain that the transmitter is not operational at the time of service.
    - adsfqwop 7y ago
      > Professor also admonished us that such technicians must always be infinitely certain that the transmitter is not operational at the time of service. It's a good thing your professor is not a tower technician. No self respecting technician climbs up a tower without knowing his potential exposure. There is a reason both the US FCC and EU ICNIRP have guidelines for human exposure, and if you are a tower technician you wear a personal RF densitometer to ensure you are not exposed above these levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor "Electromagnetic field densitometers, as used in the cellular phone industry, are referred as "personal RF safety monitors", personal protection monitors (PPM) or RF exposimeters.[1] They form part of the personal protective equipment worn by a person working in areas exposed to radio spectrum radiation." And even with a densitometer, when working on high-powered live equipment, you also wear a protective suit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/NardalertS3_SuitS.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Nardaler... I hope you forward this information to your professor. Industrial RF radiation is not something you want to play around with.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- macawfish 7y ago
  Why is it that you can just dismiss the hesitancy of more than a hundred researchers with PhD's in a wide range of relevant disciplines who have made careers out of studying this kind of thing by simply posting a comment saying "it's all nonsense"? https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal ctrl-f for "PhD" shows 126 results on the page. Electromagnetic radiation is used as a signaling medium for countless lifeforms on earth, including the cells and microbes in our own bodies. Imagine if some alien creature decided they wanted to flash relatively bright blue light across the entire surface planet, day and night at frequencies that known to induce epileptic seizures. It'd affect your quality of life and mine. For some people, it'd be devastating. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. I fail to see how a blanket dismissal of peoples concerns, however uninformed many of them may be, counts as "rational"!
  - xxpor 7y ago
    >ctrl-f for "PhD" shows 126 results on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Show me one species that uses GHz signalling.
  - cloakandswagger 7y ago
    I can find 100 crackpot scientists as easily as I can find 100 crackpot doctors or mathematicians. Instead of appeals to authority, why can't we work with the facts and evidence that we have already (those overwhelmingly disproving the health hazards of 5G)? "Peoples concerns" equate to the desire to halt all human progress out of some bizarre mix of paranoia and Neo-Luddism.
    - throwaway995669 7y ago
      That's an ad hominem attack. It's an inconvenient possibility (not going to call it truth) that our technology might be hurting us. We're addicted to technology the same way smokers are addicted to nicotine. Smoking was at one time considered healthy and promoted by doctors, and now where are we?
- cuonic 7y ago
  > See all of those microwave antennas on buildings and towers? A lot of them transmit around there. But microwave links are P2P and directional, using narrow beams at a certain height so that humans (or other objects) don't get in the way. That will not be the case with 5G.
  - dicknuckle 7y ago
    microwave is a broad term. WiFi in your house is in the microwave band. microwave CAN be directional and focused, but doesn't have to be.
CamperBob2 7y ago
Yes, a fellow named Planck did, when he described the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Any further questions, take them up with your high school physics teacher.
throwaway995669 7y ago
Unfortunately, as a society I think we're going to have to "pee on the electric fence" for ourselves to find out. Despite the fact that this spectrum has never been used for any widespread purpose, we're rolling it out and the burden is not on the implementers to prove that it is safe. It's basically on researchers to both prove, publicize, and convince society as a whole that 5G has health impacts. I am not going to go all conspiracy-theory and say that the research is being suppressed but certainly funding for this research is not going to be a priority for the US government, as they've been thoroughly bought and paid for. Most research into health effects of non-ionizing radiation is not funded from the US government, so draw your own conclusions from that.
pas 7y ago
The "good news" is that if it was serious, we would very likely already know. Therefore via some Bayesian inference we can claim that it's relatively harmless, but obviously worth keeping an eye on. The bad news is that there are and will be entrenched interests that will likely try to "work around" any health concern, and maybe, potentially we will hear that the existence of 5G is worth it. (For example the tech advantage helps with healthcare more than the radiation harms us.)
black-tea 7y ago
So far the comments suggest that no, nobody has. They are all of the form "it must be OK or they wouldn't do it", ie. the phenomenon where adults think someone else is looking after them.

leroy_masochist 7y ago

Paging Dr. Allcome.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOovtZXYqj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOovtZXYqj4

Dylan16807 7y ago

Some of those items on the list are sending up red flags to me. The weapon use is purely because it heats skin; if you apply a million times less energy for a million times as long, the danger level from heat is zero. When it can't penetrate skin, it does make sense to classify head skin exposure the same as foot skin exposure. The thing about sweat glands is interesting. And sadly I have no idea how to evaluate the quality of the studies linked.

xxpor 7y ago

It's all nonsense. The higher frequencies are non-ionizing and in common use today. See all of those microwave antennas on buildings and towers? A lot of them transmit around there. Your neighbor can blast 24 ghz right at your house with a free licence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.2-centimeter_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.2-centimeter_band The reason microwaves (like from a microwave oven) are dangerous are because of their power levels. Like, they'd cook you if they leaked out. Not because of ionizing radiation.

throwaway995669 7y ago
Non-ionizing radiation does have potential biological effects on Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels (VGCCs) which our cells have plenty of: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Not when immersed in a giant bag of salt water.
lima 7y ago
> Like, they'd cook you if they leaked out. Nope, they wouldn't. The standing wave would break down as soon as it left the enclosure. It would still be a potentially harmful amount of radiation, but not like that. And no, 24 GHz is not in common use. It's used for special applications, mostly highly directional tower-to-tower links (I have one sitting on my roof for a high-bandwidth HAM radio link). With 5G, it will be ubiquitous in an unprecedented way. We've already seen plenty of interference with 5 GHz. Of course, there's a lot of fearmongering whenever RF radiation is involved, but there are genuine safety concerns. Source: HAM radio operator
- xxpor 7y ago
  >Nope, they wouldn't. The standing wave would break down as soon as it left the enclosure. It would still be a potentially harmful amount of radiation, but not like that. Yeah that's a good point >And no, 24 GHz is not in common use. It's used for special applications, mostly highly directional tower-to-tower links (I have one sitting on my roof for a high-bandwidth HAM radio link). That's what I mean by common use. Omnidirectional antennas aren't in common use.
- torqueTorrent 7y ago
  In school, we used to learn about the RF service technicians returning with stories of dead birds and other such phantasmagoria in and around the sweet spots of the feedhorn, antenna, transmission line, transmitter or other such sensitive areas of high power microwave operations. Professor also admonished us that such technicians must always be infinitely certain that the transmitter is not operational at the time of service.
  - adsfqwop 7y ago
    > Professor also admonished us that such technicians must always be infinitely certain that the transmitter is not operational at the time of service. It's a good thing your professor is not a tower technician. No self respecting technician climbs up a tower without knowing his potential exposure. There is a reason both the US FCC and EU ICNIRP have guidelines for human exposure, and if you are a tower technician you wear a personal RF densitometer to ensure you are not exposed above these levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_RF_safety_monitor "Electromagnetic field densitometers, as used in the cellular phone industry, are referred as "personal RF safety monitors", personal protection monitors (PPM) or RF exposimeters.[1] They form part of the personal protective equipment worn by a person working in areas exposed to radio spectrum radiation." And even with a densitometer, when working on high-powered live equipment, you also wear a protective suit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/NardalertS3_SuitS.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Nardaler... I hope you forward this information to your professor. Industrial RF radiation is not something you want to play around with.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
macawfish 7y ago
Why is it that you can just dismiss the hesitancy of more than a hundred researchers with PhD's in a wide range of relevant disciplines who have made careers out of studying this kind of thing by simply posting a comment saying "it's all nonsense"? https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal ctrl-f for "PhD" shows 126 results on the page. Electromagnetic radiation is used as a signaling medium for countless lifeforms on earth, including the cells and microbes in our own bodies. Imagine if some alien creature decided they wanted to flash relatively bright blue light across the entire surface planet, day and night at frequencies that known to induce epileptic seizures. It'd affect your quality of life and mine. For some people, it'd be devastating. Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. I fail to see how a blanket dismissal of peoples concerns, however uninformed many of them may be, counts as "rational"!
- xxpor 7y ago
  >ctrl-f for "PhD" shows 126 results on the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Show me one species that uses GHz signalling.
- cloakandswagger 7y ago
  I can find 100 crackpot scientists as easily as I can find 100 crackpot doctors or mathematicians. Instead of appeals to authority, why can't we work with the facts and evidence that we have already (those overwhelmingly disproving the health hazards of 5G)? "Peoples concerns" equate to the desire to halt all human progress out of some bizarre mix of paranoia and Neo-Luddism.
  - throwaway995669 7y ago
    That's an ad hominem attack. It's an inconvenient possibility (not going to call it truth) that our technology might be hurting us. We're addicted to technology the same way smokers are addicted to nicotine. Smoking was at one time considered healthy and promoted by doctors, and now where are we?
cuonic 7y ago
> See all of those microwave antennas on buildings and towers? A lot of them transmit around there. But microwave links are P2P and directional, using narrow beams at a certain height so that humans (or other objects) don't get in the way. That will not be the case with 5G.
- dicknuckle 7y ago
  microwave is a broad term. WiFi in your house is in the microwave band. microwave CAN be directional and focused, but doesn't have to be.

CamperBob2 7y ago

Yes, a fellow named Planck did, when he described the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Any further questions, take them up with your high school physics teacher.

throwaway995669 7y ago

Unfortunately, as a society I think we're going to have to "pee on the electric fence" for ourselves to find out. Despite the fact that this spectrum has never been used for any widespread purpose, we're rolling it out and the burden is not on the implementers to prove that it is safe. It's basically on researchers to both prove, publicize, and convince society as a whole that 5G has health impacts. I am not going to go all conspiracy-theory and say that the research is being suppressed but certainly funding for this research is not going to be a priority for the US government, as they've been thoroughly bought and paid for. Most research into health effects of non-ionizing radiation is not funded from the US government, so draw your own conclusions from that.

pas 7y ago

The "good news" is that if it was serious, we would very likely already know. Therefore via some Bayesian inference we can claim that it's relatively harmless, but obviously worth keeping an eye on. The bad news is that there are and will be entrenched interests that will likely try to "work around" any health concern, and maybe, potentially we will hear that the existence of 5G is worth it. (For example the tech advantage helps with healthcare more than the radiation harms us.)

black-tea 7y ago

So far the comments suggest that no, nobody has. They are all of the form "it must be OK or they wouldn't do it", ie. the phenomenon where adults think someone else is looking after them.