4 ms·

Last time I got into a discussion on Facebook about 5G someone ended up responding with this article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS254

by crummy 7y ago

Last time I got into a discussion on Facebook about 5G someone ended up responding with this article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5... The Lancet, from what I understand, is a pretty respectable journal and now I'm not sure what to make of the issue. Most of the anti-5G videos share a lot in common with antivax conspiracy theory stuff but this article seems well cited. I'm still a skeptic but wasn't sure how to respond.

danielst 7y ago
Thanks for the link to the article. It is worth quoting from it, I think: "At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world's largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation."
- dsign 7y ago
  I find that article full of red flags: - Conflating all radio-frequencies - Some of the cited articles specifically admit that the results are non-confirmed. - Multiple instances of going lax in "correlation is not causation", specially with bees and babies. About the babies, oh I could go on a longer rant on that one. Yes they pay way too much attention to phones to the point where some mental faculties develop in a different way. But hey, when we lived in nomadic groups of people in the African flat-lands, the kids would always have more people and critters around to catch their attention, these days it is often just two busy adults in a sprawling all-consuming house with wages to earn, mortgages to pay and baby messes to fix. In my view, our "forced" social conventions, including Christian monogamy and asphyxiating rigid sexual and familial conventions have more to do with the problem than cell-phones. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that in the "natural" world nature had more effective ways to kill us than even the Sun's ultraviolet radiation, so it's a brave new world out there once we make it after our 30s. So who knows, probably radio-frequencies are also out to get us.
yaantc 7y ago
One of the co-signee of this Lancet paper, David O. Carpenter, is the subject of the NYT article.
zeristor 7y ago
From the journal that published Dr. Andrew Wakefield research on Autism and MMR? I would hope it’s improved, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
- tzs 7y ago
  How were they supposed to know that Wakefield's data was fraudulent?
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  If there is any opinion about Lancet, regarding to the Wakefield story that you should get - is that you should hold Lancet in a higher regard, not lower - they retracted the study! The study was published with fraudulent data which Lancet could not check immediately. In such a an environment a good scientific journal should publish the study regardless of how outrageous the title sounds. There are scientific truths that come out all the time that first sound outlandish. If the journals would only publish the studies which support the status quo in their area, we would never have any real vertical progress only small horizointal improvements. Then, when it was actually shown by a due process that the Wakefield study was fraudulent - the Lancet, again, as any respectable scientific journal should, retracted the study and published the retraction. This is exactly how the scientific process should work. So in other words, don't dicourage some study just because you don't like the outcome. Keep checking it further using the scientific method and due process, review, replication etc. If actually shows to be false, random or fraudulent - then retract it. You should be happy there are journals like Lancet, not be more suspicious of it. That's how science works best.
itcrowd 7y ago
> The Lancet, from what I understand, is a pretty respectable journal Again, it's complicated. The Lancet is the name of a (good!) general medical journal, but there are also topics that are discussed in specialized sub-journals. The one you linked to is from "The Lancet Planetary Health", a relatively (2017) new journal that is not on the master journal list [1] and is therefore not seen as respectable, well-recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journal. [1] Search the list on this website: http://mjl.clarivate.com/ http://mjl.clarivate.com/

by crummy 7y ago

danielst 7y ago

Thanks for the link to the article. It is worth quoting from it, I think: "At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world's largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation."

dsign 7y ago
I find that article full of red flags: - Conflating all radio-frequencies - Some of the cited articles specifically admit that the results are non-confirmed. - Multiple instances of going lax in "correlation is not causation", specially with bees and babies. About the babies, oh I could go on a longer rant on that one. Yes they pay way too much attention to phones to the point where some mental faculties develop in a different way. But hey, when we lived in nomadic groups of people in the African flat-lands, the kids would always have more people and critters around to catch their attention, these days it is often just two busy adults in a sprawling all-consuming house with wages to earn, mortgages to pay and baby messes to fix. In my view, our "forced" social conventions, including Christian monogamy and asphyxiating rigid sexual and familial conventions have more to do with the problem than cell-phones. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that in the "natural" world nature had more effective ways to kill us than even the Sun's ultraviolet radiation, so it's a brave new world out there once we make it after our 30s. So who knows, probably radio-frequencies are also out to get us.

yaantc 7y ago

One of the co-signee of this Lancet paper, David O. Carpenter, is the subject of the NYT article.

zeristor 7y ago

From the journal that published Dr. Andrew Wakefield research on Autism and MMR? I would hope it’s improved, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.

tzs 7y ago
How were they supposed to know that Wakefield's data was fraudulent?
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
If there is any opinion about Lancet, regarding to the Wakefield story that you should get - is that you should hold Lancet in a higher regard, not lower - they retracted the study! The study was published with fraudulent data which Lancet could not check immediately. In such a an environment a good scientific journal should publish the study regardless of how outrageous the title sounds. There are scientific truths that come out all the time that first sound outlandish. If the journals would only publish the studies which support the status quo in their area, we would never have any real vertical progress only small horizointal improvements. Then, when it was actually shown by a due process that the Wakefield study was fraudulent - the Lancet, again, as any respectable scientific journal should, retracted the study and published the retraction. This is exactly how the scientific process should work. So in other words, don't dicourage some study just because you don't like the outcome. Keep checking it further using the scientific method and due process, review, replication etc. If actually shows to be false, random or fraudulent - then retract it. You should be happy there are journals like Lancet, not be more suspicious of it. That's how science works best.

itcrowd 7y ago

> The Lancet, from what I understand, is a pretty respectable journal Again, it's complicated. The Lancet is the name of a (good!) general medical journal, but there are also topics that are discussed in specialized sub-journals. The one you linked to is from "The Lancet Planetary Health", a relatively (2017) new journal that is not on the master journal list [1] and is therefore not seen as respectable, well-recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journal. [1] Search the list on this website: http://mjl.clarivate.com/ http://mjl.clarivate.com/