5 ms·

When people plain-language declare things as "safe" or "unsafe" it's clear they don't have a background in technical risk assessment. When people call 5G "safe

by cjslep 7y ago

When people plain-language declare things as "safe" or "unsafe" it's clear they don't have a background in technical risk assessment. When people call 5G "safe" or "unsafe", it's clear they don't know about radiation effects on human health. The correct answer is "we don't have data". Edit: The fact that people would rather make fun of me and imagine me as an "non-ionizing radiation tin foil hatter" (I am not, non-ionizing radiation has no negative long-term health effects) I hope is a demonstration of the power of one's own biases and forcing it onto a stranger to fit one's own convenient worldview.

mhh__ 7y ago
Well yeah but have you considered that if you put a mouse in a slowly oscillating catastrophic magnetic field you get a usually statistically insignificant outcome!! Wake up sheeple
- cjslep 7y ago
  Studies have repeatedly shown non-ionizing radiation has no long term health effects. As material science closes the tetrahertz gap, the longitudinal studies, by their very definition, take time to complete (longitudinal studies = exposing animals or individuals at lower doses for much longer periods of times). It's natural for an undisciplined mind to assume they're also non-ionizing. But it is a mark of a disciplined scientific mind to be cautious and instead not extrapolate outside the existing dataset.
  - mhh__ 7y ago
    Even the people saying it harms people don't say its ionizing. If we take the frequency of 5G and compare it with X-rays (the lowest energy ionizing photons give or take) we're only off by a factor of 600000
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Do you think that light bulbs cause cancer? They emit higher frequency radiation than 5G.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      They can cause skin cancer if they emit UV. That one is rather obvious, so most light emitters are made to not emit UV light.
      - BubRoss 7y ago
        That's like saying your TV would cause cancer if it emitted X-rays. I don't know what point a made up scenario contributes. This was a reply to someone saying that 'we don't have the data to know if sub light frequencies of radiation are non ionizing'.
BubRoss 7y ago
I could say the same thing about people who talk about radiation without mentioning what part of the frequency spectrum they are referring to.
- cjslep 7y ago
  Exactly, such people who do know would clearly understand my comments are around the allocations of 5G in the tetrahertz range, where the gap is shrinking, instead of uncharitably mischaracterizing my statements in the worst possible light (5G allocations elsewhere in the spectrum).
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    If you mean terahertz, 5G is supposed to top out around 85ghz. Also terahertz range is the start of infrared light. If you think that is dangerous, you might not want to sit too close to a campfire.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Well, microwaves are dangerous too, enough of them will cook you. At higher frequencies, the effects get more and more surface level though.
      - BubRoss 7y ago
        With enough power infrared lasers will cut through steel but no one is afraid their TV remote is going to cut off their fingers. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by talking about the effects of something with a million times the power behind it.
elil17 7y ago
Your point as a whole stands, but I think even saying “we don’t have data” misrepresents the situation. We have strong theoretical reasons, from our understandings of physics and biology, to believe that there will be no harmful effects. An expert would reasonably say to someone, either a layman or another expert, “5G is safe.”
- cjslep 7y ago
  I disagree: saying "we don't have data" [0] doesn't say anything about the existence or lack of existence of underlying models. Models are refined all the time to account for exceptions and transitions shown in empirical measurements (Mercury's orbit, deflection of light & general relativity, for example). The tetrahertz range is especially interesting precisely because it is an unknown between known non-ionizing and known ionizing effects. Extrapolating down from ionizing radiation biological effect data and panicking makes as little sense as extrapolating up from non-ionizing radiation biological effect data and making fun of the panic-ers. I think it's a fantastic opportunity to prove or modify our existing models. But a mistake to assume the models hold true, given the historical intensity of debate around the (discredited) Linear No Threshold Model and subsequent alternative proposed models. Edit: I would personally say 5G is more likely to be safe (no acute radiation-caused long term health effects) than unsafe. But I'm not one who likes to gamble, especially with the lives of the public. [0] DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2011.574206
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Precautionary principle notwithstanding, this is framing the question wrong. The proper question to ask is: is it safer than microwave transmission at low doses like used in phones and wifi. Those are already absolutely known to be unsafe. Just extremely mildly. (Likely not even carcinogenic given historical population incidence data. Current evidence suggests similar impact for similar power high frequency transmitters.) Policy questions are not somewhere we can afford ignorance and black and white thinking. Precautionary principle is only good if you're not stopping a better and safer solution with it for sake of conservatism. See, 5G is not just washing everyone with radiation, it comes with widespread beamforming, which is likely to send lower energy through anything obstructing it. Skin effect prevents getting penetrated with the waves at low energy used in communications. Those are extremely strong arguments and the onus is really in anyone that says it's unsafe to actually show it is, properly and without doubt. Otherwise it's plain scaremongering to suggest "we don't know" when the consensus is "it's safe". Exactly the same tactic as used by some climate denialists. Sample study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ (Read all the links to see the whole story. And these scientists used a rather high energy level compared to expected. The current analyses suggest the studies - which mostly show effects - inadequate. There's a strong bias towards publishing an evidence of effect when there's none. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ )

by cjslep 7y ago

mhh__ 7y ago

Well yeah but have you considered that if you put a mouse in a slowly oscillating catastrophic magnetic field you get a usually statistically insignificant outcome!! Wake up sheeple

cjslep 7y ago
Studies have repeatedly shown non-ionizing radiation has no long term health effects. As material science closes the tetrahertz gap, the longitudinal studies, by their very definition, take time to complete (longitudinal studies = exposing animals or individuals at lower doses for much longer periods of times). It's natural for an undisciplined mind to assume they're also non-ionizing. But it is a mark of a disciplined scientific mind to be cautious and instead not extrapolate outside the existing dataset.
- mhh__ 7y ago
  Even the people saying it harms people don't say its ionizing. If we take the frequency of 5G and compare it with X-rays (the lowest energy ionizing photons give or take) we're only off by a factor of 600000
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Do you think that light bulbs cause cancer? They emit higher frequency radiation than 5G.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    They can cause skin cancer if they emit UV. That one is rather obvious, so most light emitters are made to not emit UV light.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      That's like saying your TV would cause cancer if it emitted X-rays. I don't know what point a made up scenario contributes. This was a reply to someone saying that 'we don't have the data to know if sub light frequencies of radiation are non ionizing'.

BubRoss 7y ago

I could say the same thing about people who talk about radiation without mentioning what part of the frequency spectrum they are referring to.

cjslep 7y ago
Exactly, such people who do know would clearly understand my comments are around the allocations of 5G in the tetrahertz range, where the gap is shrinking, instead of uncharitably mischaracterizing my statements in the worst possible light (5G allocations elsewhere in the spectrum).
- BubRoss 7y ago
  If you mean terahertz, 5G is supposed to top out around 85ghz. Also terahertz range is the start of infrared light. If you think that is dangerous, you might not want to sit too close to a campfire.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Well, microwaves are dangerous too, enough of them will cook you. At higher frequencies, the effects get more and more surface level though.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      With enough power infrared lasers will cut through steel but no one is afraid their TV remote is going to cut off their fingers. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by talking about the effects of something with a million times the power behind it.

elil17 7y ago

Your point as a whole stands, but I think even saying “we don’t have data” misrepresents the situation. We have strong theoretical reasons, from our understandings of physics and biology, to believe that there will be no harmful effects. An expert would reasonably say to someone, either a layman or another expert, “5G is safe.”

cjslep 7y ago
I disagree: saying "we don't have data" [0] doesn't say anything about the existence or lack of existence of underlying models. Models are refined all the time to account for exceptions and transitions shown in empirical measurements (Mercury's orbit, deflection of light & general relativity, for example). The tetrahertz range is especially interesting precisely because it is an unknown between known non-ionizing and known ionizing effects. Extrapolating down from ionizing radiation biological effect data and panicking makes as little sense as extrapolating up from non-ionizing radiation biological effect data and making fun of the panic-ers. I think it's a fantastic opportunity to prove or modify our existing models. But a mistake to assume the models hold true, given the historical intensity of debate around the (discredited) Linear No Threshold Model and subsequent alternative proposed models. Edit: I would personally say 5G is more likely to be safe (no acute radiation-caused long term health effects) than unsafe. But I'm not one who likes to gamble, especially with the lives of the public. [0] DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2011.574206
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Precautionary principle notwithstanding, this is framing the question wrong. The proper question to ask is: is it safer than microwave transmission at low doses like used in phones and wifi. Those are already absolutely known to be unsafe. Just extremely mildly. (Likely not even carcinogenic given historical population incidence data. Current evidence suggests similar impact for similar power high frequency transmitters.) Policy questions are not somewhere we can afford ignorance and black and white thinking. Precautionary principle is only good if you're not stopping a better and safer solution with it for sake of conservatism. See, 5G is not just washing everyone with radiation, it comes with widespread beamforming, which is likely to send lower energy through anything obstructing it. Skin effect prevents getting penetrated with the waves at low energy used in communications. Those are extremely strong arguments and the onus is really in anyone that says it's unsafe to actually show it is, properly and without doubt. Otherwise it's plain scaremongering to suggest "we don't know" when the consensus is "it's safe". Exactly the same tactic as used by some climate denialists. Sample study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ (Read all the links to see the whole story. And these scientists used a rather high energy level compared to expected. The current analyses suggest the studies - which mostly show effects - inadequate. There's a strong bias towards publishing an evidence of effect when there's none. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ )