3 ms·

Thank you itcrowd for your thoughtful reply and for going deeper into this. I think you have spelled out our common ground in points 1-3 very well. And thank yo

Thank you itcrowd for your thoughtful reply and for going deeper into this. I think you have spelled out our common ground in points 1-3 very well. And thank you also for digging up these other articles. I had a look at [5]. So our difference seems to be, as you mentioned, whether we believe 5G deployment (sorry, I avoid the term "rollout" since I cannot stomach this term any more, it is used so repeatedly and reflexively in practically every article dealing with the subject :) ) should be halted or slowed before more research has been done as to its health effects. I see this as a question of ethics. The technology, of course, is being rushed to deployment and by its nature will will reach everyone within range of its multitude of base stations. The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. At our current state of knowledge, we do not know whether the new 5G technology poses a significant threat of harm to humans, or a moderate threat, or a small threat, or no threat at all. The previous, related technology (3G, 4G, wi-fi, cell phones themselves, etc.) has been shown by the majority of the (independent) literature to pose health risks that are very much worthy of concern. The 5G technology involves a much greater number of base stations at close proximity to each other and humans, as well as a different, higher frequency whose effects on humans are unknown since apparently untested. Looking at this situation as a whole from the point of view of ethics, I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the new 5G technology could have significant health effects and that immersing the population in the radiofrequency radiation from this technology without first ruling out these plausible health effects, in the interest of not impeding the progress of the technology, is seriously problematic. "The precautionary principle" is often cited in this connection, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with it. Another aspect to take into account is that if the technology is studied thoroughly beforehand as to its possible health effects, it may be possible to amend the technology if necessary, or formulate precautionary measures, to minimize the health impact while still introducing the technology. Deploying the technology before thorough testing amounts, I believe, to a crapshoot, "flying blind" as the U.S. Senator Blumenthal said in a congressional hearing in which he questioned senior members of the wireless industry. The technology is being pushed forward (for which the wireless industry and the government certainly have their own interests which do not overlap with those of the public, though one could argue that the higher download speeds (which I consider to be pretty trivial in the big picture) and other, future as-of-yet ill-defined applications of 5G (internet of things, etc.) could be of benefit to the public), and effectively we are just going to wait and watch and see if it hurts people a lot, a little, or not at all. I do not see how this can be considered in the least responsible. I would be interested to know your thoughts and reflections on this ethical question, and of any other members of this forum who would like to chime in.

itcrowd 7y ago
Ah, ethics. Here's my opinion. No literature this time [happy] To keep in your cited "flying blind" analogy: I don't think we're flying blind. I think we have a good understanding of the dominant mechanisms that could cause biological harm (i.e. ionization and heating). I would rather say that we are flying with 98% vision. Are there some blind spots? Yes! We don't have full knowledge of all effects of millimeter-wave radiation, but the picture gradually becomes more complete. That's why it is important to keep researching. However, we cannot be moving the goalposts. Let's imagine that it is shown that millimeter-wave radiation does not cause brain cancer. Then other "sceptics" may say "well, what about skin cancer?" and later "what about alzheimer's?" or "what about lung infections?". While I don't want to trivialize the seriousness of these diseases, I think it is fair to ask: when is 5G safety demonstrated sufficiently? Even after answering these questions, people may come up with yet another disease to investigate. This is what I meant earlier when I said you "can't prove a negative": you can't prove safety, you can only prove unsafety. [1] That is why I think it is of paramount importance to identify mechanisms by which harm could occur and then investigate: - what phenomenon (phenomena) are influenced by this mechanism? - does this phenomenon actually occur [in the human body or animals], or is it only deep inside [the human body] where radiation doesn't penetrate? - how harmful / beneficial is this, i.e. what is the extent of the effect? I think we are starting to identify some biological effects that (in my opinion) are not major concerns. This is where the science is not clear-cut. As for the "precautionary principle", yes we must be cautious about any new technology. But how many times can the goalposts be shifted before we acknowledge its safety? How can the industry prove or at least demonstrate an acceptable safety level? --- > The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. I think that's accurate and a reason that scientists need to clearly communicate the findings of their studies to the general public. A well-informed decision must be made. The level of discussion (other than this one) is pathetic, to be honest. Industry claiming its safe, some interest groups saying its unsafe and the public left stuck in the middle with no real clue of what to do. The one with the highest circulation of clickbait articles filled with fake statistics circulating on social media "wins" the discussion. Science be damned. --- As for the purpose of 5G: I think it is completely overblown, media-hyped tech and the biggest buzzword of the last year(s). In my (academic) circles, I see 5G being the new "quantum" in the sense that it brings in a ton of research money (public and private!) if you can somehow manage to squeeze in the word "5G" in your powerpoint proposal for research funding. For me personally, I haven't seen any "killer application" of 5G. That's not to say that that can't come, of course. If 5G adoption must be halted for several years because significant health implications are suspected, I am (personally) fine with that. My opinion however, is that there is no scientific foundation for such drastic measures. --- [1] Note the irony here, in that I am actually saying that the negative (unsafety) can be proven while the positive (safety) cannot.

itcrowd 7y ago

Ah, ethics. Here's my opinion. No literature this time [happy] To keep in your cited "flying blind" analogy: I don't think we're flying blind. I think we have a good understanding of the dominant mechanisms that could cause biological harm (i.e. ionization and heating). I would rather say that we are flying with 98% vision. Are there some blind spots? Yes! We don't have full knowledge of all effects of millimeter-wave radiation, but the picture gradually becomes more complete. That's why it is important to keep researching. However, we cannot be moving the goalposts. Let's imagine that it is shown that millimeter-wave radiation does not cause brain cancer. Then other "sceptics" may say "well, what about skin cancer?" and later "what about alzheimer's?" or "what about lung infections?". While I don't want to trivialize the seriousness of these diseases, I think it is fair to ask: when is 5G safety demonstrated sufficiently? Even after answering these questions, people may come up with yet another disease to investigate. This is what I meant earlier when I said you "can't prove a negative": you can't prove safety, you can only prove unsafety. [1] That is why I think it is of paramount importance to identify mechanisms by which harm could occur and then investigate: - what phenomenon (phenomena) are influenced by this mechanism? - does this phenomenon actually occur [in the human body or animals], or is it only deep inside [the human body] where radiation doesn't penetrate? - how harmful / beneficial is this, i.e. what is the extent of the effect? I think we are starting to identify some biological effects that (in my opinion) are not major concerns. This is where the science is not clear-cut. As for the "precautionary principle", yes we must be cautious about any new technology. But how many times can the goalposts be shifted before we acknowledge its safety? How can the industry prove or at least demonstrate an acceptable safety level? --- > The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. I think that's accurate and a reason that scientists need to clearly communicate the findings of their studies to the general public. A well-informed decision must be made. The level of discussion (other than this one) is pathetic, to be honest. Industry claiming its safe, some interest groups saying its unsafe and the public left stuck in the middle with no real clue of what to do. The one with the highest circulation of clickbait articles filled with fake statistics circulating on social media "wins" the discussion. Science be damned. --- As for the purpose of 5G: I think it is completely overblown, media-hyped tech and the biggest buzzword of the last year(s). In my (academic) circles, I see 5G being the new "quantum" in the sense that it brings in a ton of research money (public and private!) if you can somehow manage to squeeze in the word "5G" in your powerpoint proposal for research funding. For me personally, I haven't seen any "killer application" of 5G. That's not to say that that can't come, of course. If 5G adoption must be halted for several years because significant health implications are suspected, I am (personally) fine with that. My opinion however, is that there is no scientific foundation for such drastic measures. --- [1] Note the irony here, in that I am actually saying that the negative (unsafety) can be proven while the positive (safety) cannot.