5 ms·

Furthermore, even if cell phones cause cancer then the risk will in all likelihood be so small that it doesn't justify banning the technology. [1] For example,

by nroets 7y ago

Furthermore, even if cell phones cause cancer then the risk will in all likelihood be so small that it doesn't justify banning the technology. [1] For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5XkhUGzBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU5XkhUGzBs

someonehere 7y ago
But not everyone eats barbecued meat or has barbecued meat near/next to their body 24/7 like people who use cell phones. I can opt out of eating barbecued meat though it carrying a phone close to my body.
- davinic 7y ago
  Fortunately/unfortunately some of us live in Kansas City and have no choice in the matter.
  - donquichotte 7y ago
    Regarding 5G or barbecued meat?
    - frandroid 7y ago
      Meat barbecued with 5G
  - madengr 7y ago
    As I type this across from Jack Stack. Korean BBQ is better anyway.
scriptdevil 7y ago
Wouldn't the difference there be that the person consuming meat is voluntarily consuming it while even people sticking to older tech phones are exposed to the newer radiation? I am no luddite but this would be my argument from a devil's advocate position
- magduf 7y ago
  No, because you're only exposed to radiation if you actually use a phone. Google for "inverse square law". Your exposure is orders of magnitude lower from "second-hand cellphones" than from using it yourself; it's not like second-hand smoking.
  - sundbry 7y ago
    Not if there's a cell tower every 100 yards putting out 30dB more power than your phone. The inverse square law also doesn't apply when you have phased arrays doing beamforming if you're directly in the path.
    - abstrakraft 7y ago
      The inverse square law totally applies in the case of phased array beamforming, you just have a much higher gain to start with.
      - strainer 7y ago
        You get a lower exponent than the square with a beam. For a perfectly parallel beam the exponent is technically 0 (same intensity regardless of distance - like a laser pointer) For a focused beam intensity will actually increase with distance up to the focal point. Some energy can be absorbed by the medium (air/moisture/rain), but that is not covered by the inverse square law.
        abstrakraft 7y ago
        Not with a planar or linear array. I'm skeptical, but prepared to learn something: what sort of array can generate a square beam? Even lasers spread. This guy agrees with me: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-the-inverse-square-law-as-distance-grows-similar-to-other-light-sources https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-th...
everdev 7y ago
"Causes" implies that you will get cancer if you partake. Maybe you mean "increases the risk of". Agreed that your risk exposure might only be fractions of a percent and not worth abstaining or regulating.
bad_user 7y ago
> For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it. Sure, but the absolute risk is very low and it's probably zero if you add veggies to your meal. And also causality was not established, observational studies on this topic suffering from the healthy-user bias in addition to a lot of confounding factors and in general for nutrition the evidence is very low quality, compared with medication research. This isn't a boolean. Saying that "this or that causes cancer" is meaningless without giving the risk factor, which has to be statistically significant and in case of meat it isn't. In other words if you want to compare the risks of 5G with anything, I think nutrition is a really poor choice due to the low standards for evidence we have and due to all the confounding factors and biases. Not sure if assessing the safety of 5G is easier, but at the very least you can do double-blind studies. At the very least you can compare it with the placebo effect. Which in nutrition isn't possible.
petre 7y ago
Cigarettes and alcohol too. Radiowave effects, even if they do cause anything, are quite easy to mitigate in humans by wearing clothing with carefully positioned electrical conductor insertions.
- pixelpoet 7y ago
  What about the head? Is it time for tinfoil hats? Working in a Faraday cage seems more appealing.

by nroets 7y ago

someonehere 7y ago

But not everyone eats barbecued meat or has barbecued meat near/next to their body 24/7 like people who use cell phones. I can opt out of eating barbecued meat though it carrying a phone close to my body.

davinic 7y ago
Fortunately/unfortunately some of us live in Kansas City and have no choice in the matter.
- donquichotte 7y ago
  Regarding 5G or barbecued meat?
  - frandroid 7y ago
    Meat barbecued with 5G
- madengr 7y ago
  As I type this across from Jack Stack. Korean BBQ is better anyway.

scriptdevil 7y ago

Wouldn't the difference there be that the person consuming meat is voluntarily consuming it while even people sticking to older tech phones are exposed to the newer radiation? I am no luddite but this would be my argument from a devil's advocate position

magduf 7y ago
No, because you're only exposed to radiation if you actually use a phone. Google for "inverse square law". Your exposure is orders of magnitude lower from "second-hand cellphones" than from using it yourself; it's not like second-hand smoking.
- sundbry 7y ago
  Not if there's a cell tower every 100 yards putting out 30dB more power than your phone. The inverse square law also doesn't apply when you have phased arrays doing beamforming if you're directly in the path.
  - abstrakraft 7y ago
    The inverse square law totally applies in the case of phased array beamforming, you just have a much higher gain to start with.
    - strainer 7y ago
      You get a lower exponent than the square with a beam. For a perfectly parallel beam the exponent is technically 0 (same intensity regardless of distance - like a laser pointer) For a focused beam intensity will actually increase with distance up to the focal point. Some energy can be absorbed by the medium (air/moisture/rain), but that is not covered by the inverse square law.
      - abstrakraft 7y ago
        Not with a planar or linear array. I'm skeptical, but prepared to learn something: what sort of array can generate a square beam? Even lasers spread. This guy agrees with me: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-the-inverse-square-law-as-distance-grows-similar-to-other-light-sources https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-th...

everdev 7y ago

"Causes" implies that you will get cancer if you partake. Maybe you mean "increases the risk of". Agreed that your risk exposure might only be fractions of a percent and not worth abstaining or regulating.

bad_user 7y ago

> For example, eating barbecued meat causes cancer, but it we don't ban it. Sure, but the absolute risk is very low and it's probably zero if you add veggies to your meal. And also causality was not established, observational studies on this topic suffering from the healthy-user bias in addition to a lot of confounding factors and in general for nutrition the evidence is very low quality, compared with medication research. This isn't a boolean. Saying that "this or that causes cancer" is meaningless without giving the risk factor, which has to be statistically significant and in case of meat it isn't. In other words if you want to compare the risks of 5G with anything, I think nutrition is a really poor choice due to the low standards for evidence we have and due to all the confounding factors and biases. Not sure if assessing the safety of 5G is easier, but at the very least you can do double-blind studies. At the very least you can compare it with the placebo effect. Which in nutrition isn't possible.

petre 7y ago

Cigarettes and alcohol too. Radiowave effects, even if they do cause anything, are quite easy to mitigate in humans by wearing clothing with carefully positioned electrical conductor insertions.

pixelpoet 7y ago
What about the head? Is it time for tinfoil hats? Working in a Faraday cage seems more appealing.