4 ms·

"However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because

by Jonnax 7y ago

"However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research." This sounds like bullshit. What were there changes between 3G and LTE that would make it more dangerous? More efficient use of spectrum?

markus92 7y ago
Different modulation techniques is the one they're claiming now. For some reason OFDM/CDMA is more dangerous than FM or amplitude modulation (AM) and there are huge biological differences, they claim.
- swader999 7y ago
  The studies that look at calcium voltage channel activation in cells are easily replicated and point to biological effects.
  - pitaj 7y ago
    Citation needed. Can you point to a replication from a reputable school or journal?
    - swader999 7y ago
      There's a lot linked in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ I don't think you'll see a lot of reputable schools taking this on though. But this effect should be easy to replicate at least.
notacoward 7y ago
From TFA: "Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure." "The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves ... 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO)"
- pas 7y ago
  "massive"? :D The M in MIMO is multiple.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    Yeah, that one seemed a bit odd to me, but it's not clear that "massive" was being presented as part of the acronym. Could just be unrelated hyperbole. FWIW, I don't have a fixed opinion on this issue one way or the other. I just really hate seeing supposedly intelligent people rely so heavily on ad hominem or similar distractions. If there really is a problem with the cited research, I'd appreciate it if somebody could point to where those are. Likewise if someone could cite sufficient contrary research to justify abandoning the precautionary principle. That's all fine. I'm willing to be persuaded, but not by appeals to or rejection of authority.
    - pas 7y ago
      Well, I think what https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21311000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21311000 describes is the sane approach. Basically a Bayesian inference from the available data and our priors shaped by our understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, higher order effects, etc. And yes, there are effects of 50-70 GHz EMF on biology, first one is heating, which is completely expected but might cause problems for insects. (But we already blast them with a lot of light at night, a lot of heat from the pavement and our buildings, and a lot of chemicals in the air.) Another interesting one is that cell bacterial division seems to be affected when combined with antibiotics. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21261425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21261425 )
      - notacoward 7y ago
        Thank you. :)
  - ajsnigrutin 7y ago
    "massive" sounds more dangerous. Saying there's mimo in 4G and even wifi is doesn't generate so many clicks on articles.
angry_octet 7y ago
There is even reason to think that newer modulations are safer precisely because they are more spread spectrum, with lower power and peak power at any particular frequency. The towers are also spread more densely, with smaller cells and lower power, which also lowers peak exposure levels. For devices, just the fact they only have to transmit a short distance to a local tower tells you about the energy. You are probably getting more cancer risk for stress hormones caused by the Instagram/Twitter on your phone than the electric field it generates, no matter how 'patterned' or polarised the field is.

by Jonnax 7y ago

markus92 7y ago

Different modulation techniques is the one they're claiming now. For some reason OFDM/CDMA is more dangerous than FM or amplitude modulation (AM) and there are huge biological differences, they claim.

swader999 7y ago
The studies that look at calcium voltage channel activation in cells are easily replicated and point to biological effects.
- pitaj 7y ago
  Citation needed. Can you point to a replication from a reputable school or journal?
  - swader999 7y ago
    There's a lot linked in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ I don't think you'll see a lot of reputable schools taking this on though. But this effect should be easy to replicate at least.

notacoward 7y ago

From TFA: "Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure." "The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves ... 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO)"

pas 7y ago
"massive"? :D The M in MIMO is multiple.
- notacoward 7y ago
  Yeah, that one seemed a bit odd to me, but it's not clear that "massive" was being presented as part of the acronym. Could just be unrelated hyperbole. FWIW, I don't have a fixed opinion on this issue one way or the other. I just really hate seeing supposedly intelligent people rely so heavily on ad hominem or similar distractions. If there really is a problem with the cited research, I'd appreciate it if somebody could point to where those are. Likewise if someone could cite sufficient contrary research to justify abandoning the precautionary principle. That's all fine. I'm willing to be persuaded, but not by appeals to or rejection of authority.
  - pas 7y ago
    Well, I think what https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21311000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21311000 describes is the sane approach. Basically a Bayesian inference from the available data and our priors shaped by our understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, higher order effects, etc. And yes, there are effects of 50-70 GHz EMF on biology, first one is heating, which is completely expected but might cause problems for insects. (But we already blast them with a lot of light at night, a lot of heat from the pavement and our buildings, and a lot of chemicals in the air.) Another interesting one is that cell bacterial division seems to be affected when combined with antibiotics. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21261425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21261425 )
    - notacoward 7y ago
      Thank you. :)
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  "massive" sounds more dangerous. Saying there's mimo in 4G and even wifi is doesn't generate so many clicks on articles.

angry_octet 7y ago

There is even reason to think that newer modulations are safer precisely because they are more spread spectrum, with lower power and peak power at any particular frequency. The towers are also spread more densely, with smaller cells and lower power, which also lowers peak exposure levels. For devices, just the fact they only have to transmit a short distance to a local tower tells you about the energy. You are probably getting more cancer risk for stress hormones caused by the Instagram/Twitter on your phone than the electric field it generates, no matter how 'patterned' or polarised the field is.