3 ms·
The radiation and cancer concern is categorically different than "not in my backyard". If you can't see that these are totally unrelated, then I don't know wha
by olah_1 7y ago
The radiation and cancer concern is categorically different than "not in my backyard".
If you can't see that these are totally unrelated, then I don't know what to say.
Fiber lines are completely different than "hey these rats that are constantly exposed to 5G radiation that's 20 yards away are acting all messed up".
- rayiner 7y agoMeritless aesthetic concerns and fake health concerns are in the same bucket. It's just ways to hold up progress. (And in this case, NIMBYs are seizing on fake health concerns to reinforce their case against deployment because they think the base stations are ugly.)
- olah_1 7y ago>fake health concerns Can you explain why it is fake? Non-ionizing radiation does have an effect on us. Just because it isn't melting our organs doesn't mean that we aren't effected negatively by it. The independent research shows this, doesn't it?
- rayiner 7y agoNumerous studies show no increase in cancer risk from cellular. In many respects, millimeter waves are even safer, because they can't penetrate through the skin as easily. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wir... https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/04/30/is_5g_wireless_dangerous_no_but_science_may_never_end_the_debate.html https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/04/30/is_5g_w...
- HyperTalk2 7y agoLawyers strive to become as good as possible at aggressively defending the objectively wrong opinion. He's either doing this as some sort of devil's advocate exercise or he's actually getting ready to defend 5G technology in court.
- rayiner 7y agoAlas, I'm just a nerd who likes radios and infrastructure, and is fed up with NIMBYs and feelers. EDIT: regarding "who stands to gain"--consumers! It's very odd to me that I'd have to defend the technology upgrade treadmill on HN of all places. In October, Apple's going to come out with the A13 chip. Is anyone going to wonder "who benefits?" Or ask "why do we need it?" No, we'll all understand that the A12 is obsolete trash now. That's how this industry works.
- olah_1 7y agoThe question is "who stands to gain"? I can't see 5G benefiting consumers at all. If you're on a 4G network, you already see no issues with streaming video. Who is 5G even for? It's a solution seeking a problem.
- HyperTalk2 7y agoIt's a weapon disguised as communications tech to keep the sheep calm while it's deployed. They want to be able to easily target any coordinates in 3D space from multiple towers at once with lethal microwave beams to boil the organs of any troublemakers who speak out against the chosen ones. Just don't make any more problematic posts and you'll be fine.
- novok 7y agoThese 'concerns' have been around as long as cell phone service has existed for every single frequency and power level. I remember my mom worrying about it back when stuff was at 1G & 2G levels. You have to realize that "high" power radio & other artificial EM transmissions have been going on ever since you were born pretty much everywhere. AM Radio, FM Radio, "wireless" TV, and todays cellphones and wifi base stations. Not to mention all the other radio traffic that is more specialized, like airplanes, HAM radio, police & emergency services, the military, the light you see from your lightbulbs, the EM radiation that emits from your electric wires running through your house, street or nearby electric transformer stations on and on. None of it has resulted in secret harm and 5G will be no different. The stuff that is harmful will have a lot of warnings around it and won't be secret. Such as UV exposure from the sun.
- HyperTalk2 7y agoThose are all whataboutisms. Your comment has no value.
- p1esk 7y agoIgnore downvoters. I wish people worried more about things that can actually kill them, like bad diet, lack of exercise, or UV exposure.