7 ms·

With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of h

by LeonM 7y ago

With every new generation of cellular technology, this question comes up. This started as early as CT, then DECT, GSM, 3G, 4G and now 5G. After 30+ years of having consumer grade wireless telephony we are still debating whether the radio signals have any negative effect on living beings. If we can't draw any conclusion from a sample size that big, then I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal (if any at all), that it is not something I should worry about. Edit: typo

Tepix 7y ago
> I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal Cancer rates are rising and we're not sure why. Is that acceptable?
- xorfish 7y ago
  There are quite a few obvious reasons why cancer rates are rising. * People get older * Cancer detection is improving * Cancer mortality is sinking
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - markus92 7y ago
    And mortality by non-cancer causes is dropping (e.g. car accidents, infectious diseases).
  - smolder 7y ago
    And a rise in carcinogenic substances in air, water, and food. Maybe changes in the landscape of pathogens. You can't really rule out additional causes or contributers based on knowing some.
- bhouston 7y ago
  A lot of cancer rates rising is pollution, but we generally believe most of it is chemical forms of pollution, not electromagnetic. That said, I am sure there are structures in the body that can selective absorb or react to non-ionizing radiation that we may not yet know about. Our cellular mechanisms are impressively complex.
- LeonM 7y ago
  No, it is not acceptable, and I didn't say that it is. It is a good thing that we spend research effort into identifying why this is happening. All I'm saying is that I have concluded, for myself, that EM-radiation is the least of my worries when it comes to negative effects (including cancer).
- m_eiman 7y ago
  Are they really rising? Not according to this statistic: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  If there was an outbreak of cancers at the right side of the head (the place where we usually hold our phone while talking on it), we'd know. But there aren't.
- swader999 7y ago
  Sperm counts are worth considering.
asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
On the one hand, I think your conclusion is correct, but on the other hand, it took quite some time to establish the health risks of smoking. Because there were concerted disinformation campaigns etc.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  Not really, it was known to be harmful for a long time, whereas there’s no evidence yet that RF waves used by cellphones are harmful.
  - gnode 7y ago
    The trouble is, there's lots of evidence, and also lots of evidence that it isn't. The only way to draw a conclusion is by making a judgement about which evidence is better: which scientific experiments are better designed?
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      You can also analyze the plausibility of the arguments. Cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. This is similar to homeopathy. Even if the state of research is not great, we're discussing a theory that is just not physically plausible. The default assumption should be that it is wrong.
- pas 7y ago
  It's not like smoking is subtle. Just ask any none smoker, or how people started with their first cigarette. Coughing, dry throat, WTF is happening, I've smoke in my lungs.
  - nabdab 7y ago
    None of the characteristics you mention are actually related to cancer though. If we banned everything that caused dry throat or caused you to caught because “obviously they cause cancer”, where would we be today? I mean we could ban 80% of all Indian food because first time westerners eat it they react much stronger to the spicy ness than they would to smoking. Stating independent of the actual science that “It was always obvious that smoking caused cancer” isn’t any better than the people stating now that “obviously EM radiation causes cancer”.
userbinator 7y ago
We've also had broadcast radio for over a century now, at much higher power levels than mobile phones.
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  Not really comparable (especially to the 5G technologies). Given their size, radio waves go right over us.
  - LeonM 7y ago
    No, they are not. If they were to go 'right over us', we wouldn't be able to receive the radio station.
    - Dirlewanger 7y ago
      The spectrum known as radio waves are anywhere from 10 to 100,000 meters long. 4 average size humans can fit inside the length of the smallest radio wave.
- swader999 7y ago
  The pulsed nature of the newer technologies is different enough.
h1d 7y ago
I see your point but I have a hyper sensitivity to EMF (among other things) and I turn off any wireless technology wherever I can (like Bluetooth, when I don't have any paring devices at home) and many devices aren't comfortable for me to keep, despite me working in an IT industry. The symptom isn't classified as a disease at where I live, so it's hard to get any decent medial treatments and I'm afraid 5G might harm me even harder when higher frequency typically makes me feel worse without a way to get away from it.
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  Have you ever tried a double blind test of your symptoms? I'm not going to be judgmental at all, but my friend's father had this ~10 years ago, and (being a scientist) decided to participate in a double-blind study. Turned out he scored no better than chance on any of the tests. That was a big enough eye opener for him that he was pretty much "cured" of EHS.
  - h1d 7y ago
    That's interesting. I could try it but I have plenty of cases where I see clear causes that make me unnecessarily tired and this is going on with me for 2 decades now. - Turn off wireless signals like Bluetooth (I keep WiFi with low emission setting which isn't as bad as BT but 5Ghz is worse than 2.4Ghz, so I only use 2.4Ghz frequency.) - Many of recent phones. (Bought iPhone X, Pixel 3a and those I can't keep close to me no matter how I tweak their settings, so they're away from me kept in boxes but I still need them for testing for my work.) - LED displays keep me uneasy. I use fluorescent ones. - IC chips used for credit cards and passports. I keep them minimum in my wallet. These are from what I've bought and sold just to find what might feel better for me. I wish I could just keep what I want. (Also not EM but chemical substances, just to say I've been living with hypersensitivity. - Keeping clothes on after coming back home from outside. So I quickly wash and take shower. - Need to clean wall every few weeks before I feel kind of choked, maybe due to glue used for the wallpapers. - Very small amount of mold. I have to clean my air conditioner from a professional service every season.) I can keep going but those are some.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
kevingadd 7y ago
Remember how long it took for us to finally get lead out of gasoline?
- LeonM 7y ago
  No, I don't because that happened in 1991, I was 5 years old back then. Also, what has lead in gasoline to do with EM-radiation?
  - carapace 7y ago
    "Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson did a whole episode on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room TL;DR: We poisoned ourselves for about half a century. > The episode describes how science, in particular the work of Clair Patterson (voiced in animated sequences by Richard Gere) in the middle of the 20th century, has been able to determine the age of the Earth. > Patterson found that his results were contaminated by lead from the ambient environment... > Tyson goes on to explain that Patterson's work in performing lead-free experiments directed him to investigate the sources for lead. Tyson notes how lead does not naturally occur at Earth's surface but has been readily mined by humans (including the Roman Empire), and that lead is poisonous to humans. Patterson examined the levels of lead in the common environment and in deeper parts of the oceans and Antarctic ice, showing that lead had only been brought to the surface in recent times. He would discover that the higher levels of lead were from the use of tetraethyllead in leaded gasoline, despite long-established claims by Robert A. Kehoe and others that this chemical was safe. Patterson would continue to campaign against the use of lead, ultimately resulting in government-mandated restrictions on the use of lead. Tyson ends by noting that similar work by scientists continues to be used to help alert mankind to other fateful issues that can be identified by the study of nature. Emphasis added.
personlurking 7y ago
Genuine question: Is there a name for saying "past evidence hasn't shown this to be true, thus it's likely to remain untrue"? I was debating a different technology with a friend and he made such a comment, but my response was that the frequency, scope and importance of past technological advancements won't hold a candle to those of the future.
- jessermeyer 7y ago
  It's just a specific use of either a Bayesian Prior or Heuristic.
- norklkiur 7y ago
  The robustness of an item is proportional to its life: Something which was true/false for 10 years is more likely to remain so for the next 10 than another thing which was true/false for 1 year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
swalsh 7y ago
5G is also fundamentally different in one important way. We are moving a way from fewer high powered towers, to a lot more low powered cells. Yes this existed in 4G, but 5G is taking it to the next level.
- FlorianRappl 7y ago
  I couldn't agree more. What I find particularly troubling: 4G is for me already more than good enough. 5G is really not so well thought out. They require a lot more cells. The exposure is much higher... They cost more (?). Why are we having this technology?

by LeonM 7y ago

Tepix 7y ago

> I must conclude that the effects of EM-radiation are so minimal Cancer rates are rising and we're not sure why. Is that acceptable?

xorfish 7y ago
There are quite a few obvious reasons why cancer rates are rising. * People get older * Cancer detection is improving * Cancer mortality is sinking
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- markus92 7y ago
  And mortality by non-cancer causes is dropping (e.g. car accidents, infectious diseases).
- smolder 7y ago
  And a rise in carcinogenic substances in air, water, and food. Maybe changes in the landscape of pathogens. You can't really rule out additional causes or contributers based on knowing some.
bhouston 7y ago
A lot of cancer rates rising is pollution, but we generally believe most of it is chemical forms of pollution, not electromagnetic. That said, I am sure there are structures in the body that can selective absorb or react to non-ionizing radiation that we may not yet know about. Our cellular mechanisms are impressively complex.
LeonM 7y ago
No, it is not acceptable, and I didn't say that it is. It is a good thing that we spend research effort into identifying why this is happening. All I'm saying is that I have concluded, for myself, that EM-radiation is the least of my worries when it comes to negative effects (including cancer).
m_eiman 7y ago
Are they really rising? Not according to this statistic: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
ajsnigrutin 7y ago
If there was an outbreak of cancers at the right side of the head (the place where we usually hold our phone while talking on it), we'd know. But there aren't.
swader999 7y ago
Sperm counts are worth considering.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

On the one hand, I think your conclusion is correct, but on the other hand, it took quite some time to establish the health risks of smoking. Because there were concerted disinformation campaigns etc.

Synaesthesia 7y ago
Not really, it was known to be harmful for a long time, whereas there’s no evidence yet that RF waves used by cellphones are harmful.
- gnode 7y ago
  The trouble is, there's lots of evidence, and also lots of evidence that it isn't. The only way to draw a conclusion is by making a judgement about which evidence is better: which scientific experiments are better designed?
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    You can also analyze the plausibility of the arguments. Cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. This is similar to homeopathy. Even if the state of research is not great, we're discussing a theory that is just not physically plausible. The default assumption should be that it is wrong.
pas 7y ago
It's not like smoking is subtle. Just ask any none smoker, or how people started with their first cigarette. Coughing, dry throat, WTF is happening, I've smoke in my lungs.
- nabdab 7y ago
  None of the characteristics you mention are actually related to cancer though. If we banned everything that caused dry throat or caused you to caught because “obviously they cause cancer”, where would we be today? I mean we could ban 80% of all Indian food because first time westerners eat it they react much stronger to the spicy ness than they would to smoking. Stating independent of the actual science that “It was always obvious that smoking caused cancer” isn’t any better than the people stating now that “obviously EM radiation causes cancer”.

userbinator 7y ago

We've also had broadcast radio for over a century now, at much higher power levels than mobile phones.

Dirlewanger 7y ago
Not really comparable (especially to the 5G technologies). Given their size, radio waves go right over us.
- LeonM 7y ago
  No, they are not. If they were to go 'right over us', we wouldn't be able to receive the radio station.
  - Dirlewanger 7y ago
    The spectrum known as radio waves are anywhere from 10 to 100,000 meters long. 4 average size humans can fit inside the length of the smallest radio wave.
swader999 7y ago
The pulsed nature of the newer technologies is different enough.

h1d 7y ago

I see your point but I have a hyper sensitivity to EMF (among other things) and I turn off any wireless technology wherever I can (like Bluetooth, when I don't have any paring devices at home) and many devices aren't comfortable for me to keep, despite me working in an IT industry. The symptom isn't classified as a disease at where I live, so it's hard to get any decent medial treatments and I'm afraid 5G might harm me even harder when higher frequency typically makes me feel worse without a way to get away from it.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
Have you ever tried a double blind test of your symptoms? I'm not going to be judgmental at all, but my friend's father had this ~10 years ago, and (being a scientist) decided to participate in a double-blind study. Turned out he scored no better than chance on any of the tests. That was a big enough eye opener for him that he was pretty much "cured" of EHS.
- h1d 7y ago
  That's interesting. I could try it but I have plenty of cases where I see clear causes that make me unnecessarily tired and this is going on with me for 2 decades now. - Turn off wireless signals like Bluetooth (I keep WiFi with low emission setting which isn't as bad as BT but 5Ghz is worse than 2.4Ghz, so I only use 2.4Ghz frequency.) - Many of recent phones. (Bought iPhone X, Pixel 3a and those I can't keep close to me no matter how I tweak their settings, so they're away from me kept in boxes but I still need them for testing for my work.) - LED displays keep me uneasy. I use fluorescent ones. - IC chips used for credit cards and passports. I keep them minimum in my wallet. These are from what I've bought and sold just to find what might feel better for me. I wish I could just keep what I want. (Also not EM but chemical substances, just to say I've been living with hypersensitivity. - Keeping clothes on after coming back home from outside. So I quickly wash and take shower. - Need to clean wall every few weeks before I feel kind of choked, maybe due to glue used for the wallpapers. - Very small amount of mold. I have to clean my air conditioner from a professional service every season.) I can keep going but those are some.
paulryanrogers 7y ago

kevingadd 7y ago

Remember how long it took for us to finally get lead out of gasoline?

LeonM 7y ago
No, I don't because that happened in 1991, I was 5 years old back then. Also, what has lead in gasoline to do with EM-radiation?
- carapace 7y ago
  "Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson did a whole episode on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room TL;DR: We poisoned ourselves for about half a century. > The episode describes how science, in particular the work of Clair Patterson (voiced in animated sequences by Richard Gere) in the middle of the 20th century, has been able to determine the age of the Earth. > Patterson found that his results were contaminated by lead from the ambient environment... > Tyson goes on to explain that Patterson's work in performing lead-free experiments directed him to investigate the sources for lead. Tyson notes how lead does not naturally occur at Earth's surface but has been readily mined by humans (including the Roman Empire), and that lead is poisonous to humans. Patterson examined the levels of lead in the common environment and in deeper parts of the oceans and Antarctic ice, showing that lead had only been brought to the surface in recent times. He would discover that the higher levels of lead were from the use of tetraethyllead in leaded gasoline, despite long-established claims by Robert A. Kehoe and others that this chemical was safe. Patterson would continue to campaign against the use of lead, ultimately resulting in government-mandated restrictions on the use of lead. Tyson ends by noting that similar work by scientists continues to be used to help alert mankind to other fateful issues that can be identified by the study of nature. Emphasis added.

personlurking 7y ago

Genuine question: Is there a name for saying "past evidence hasn't shown this to be true, thus it's likely to remain untrue"? I was debating a different technology with a friend and he made such a comment, but my response was that the frequency, scope and importance of past technological advancements won't hold a candle to those of the future.

jessermeyer 7y ago
It's just a specific use of either a Bayesian Prior or Heuristic.
norklkiur 7y ago
The robustness of an item is proportional to its life: Something which was true/false for 10 years is more likely to remain so for the next 10 than another thing which was true/false for 1 year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

swalsh 7y ago

5G is also fundamentally different in one important way. We are moving a way from fewer high powered towers, to a lot more low powered cells. Yes this existed in 4G, but 5G is taking it to the next level.

FlorianRappl 7y ago
I couldn't agree more. What I find particularly troubling: 4G is for me already more than good enough. 5G is really not so well thought out. They require a lot more cells. The exposure is much higher... They cost more (?). Why are we having this technology?