3 ms·

There's actual scientists doubting that it is safe: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.sc

There's actual scientists doubting that it is safe: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... Now, they're not explicitly saying that 5G is dangerous, but that's not my point. Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. Pulling the trigger on a gun that might be loaded is dangerous, even if it isn't loaded.

mullingitover 7y ago
I have a Scientific American blog post too, which takes yours to task on the weak evidence the author is citing. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-... > Not only was the paper’s result weak, but the same analysis showed that male rats in the high-RF group lived significantly longer than the unexposed rodents. It would, of course, be utterly and equally fallacious to claim that RF exposure increases life span. Yet the fact that anti-5G activists are happy to gloss over this detail shows an alarming degree of cherry-picking afoot. > The most reliable data come from large and robust trials, with careful controls and large sample groups. The 13-country INTERPHONE study is one example: its unequivocal conclusion was that there was no causal relationship between phone use and incidences of common brain tumors such as glioblastoma and meningioma. The dose-response curve from this undertaking is telling, because it clearly does not betray any obvious signs of correlation. A similar Danish cohort study also did not reveal any obvious link between phone usage and tumor rates. Now, you're saying: > Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. So great news, the evidence that 5G is potentially unsafe isn't really there. Heck, there's evidence that it could make you live longer, so maybe we're being irresponsible by waiting to deploy it.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  To be clear, I'm not personally concerned about 5G, my point is that not everyone who has concerns about it is a conspiracy theorist. That I have shown. Besides that, I have a problem with "the evidence is weak" arguments, because the evidence for anything is weak if you never have looked. The INTERPHONE study may be of high quality, but it didn't look into 5G. Extrapolating from that is insufficient. The fact of the matter is that proving the safety of 5G before rollout is not feasible. At best we can look back in ten or twenty years after rollout and draw our conclusions. That's how long it will take to actually get any good evidence, like the INTERPHONE study. By then, we'll probably have rolled out 6G and 7G, to unknown effect. > So great news, the evidence that 5G is potentially unsafe isn't really there. The evidence that 5G is unsafe isn't there. The evidence that it is safe isn't there either. It's still "potentially unsafe".

mullingitover 7y ago

I have a Scientific American blog post too, which takes yours to task on the weak evidence the author is citing. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-... > Not only was the paper’s result weak, but the same analysis showed that male rats in the high-RF group lived significantly longer than the unexposed rodents. It would, of course, be utterly and equally fallacious to claim that RF exposure increases life span. Yet the fact that anti-5G activists are happy to gloss over this detail shows an alarming degree of cherry-picking afoot. > The most reliable data come from large and robust trials, with careful controls and large sample groups. The 13-country INTERPHONE study is one example: its unequivocal conclusion was that there was no causal relationship between phone use and incidences of common brain tumors such as glioblastoma and meningioma. The dose-response curve from this undertaking is telling, because it clearly does not betray any obvious signs of correlation. A similar Danish cohort study also did not reveal any obvious link between phone usage and tumor rates. Now, you're saying: > Rolling out a potentially unsafe technology is dangerous, even if the technology is harmless. So great news, the evidence that 5G is potentially unsafe isn't really there. Heck, there's evidence that it could make you live longer, so maybe we're being irresponsible by waiting to deploy it.

gridlockd 7y ago
To be clear, I'm not personally concerned about 5G, my point is that not everyone who has concerns about it is a conspiracy theorist. That I have shown. Besides that, I have a problem with "the evidence is weak" arguments, because the evidence for anything is weak if you never have looked. The INTERPHONE study may be of high quality, but it didn't look into 5G. Extrapolating from that is insufficient. The fact of the matter is that proving the safety of 5G before rollout is not feasible. At best we can look back in ten or twenty years after rollout and draw our conclusions. That's how long it will take to actually get any good evidence, like the INTERPHONE study. By then, we'll probably have rolled out 6G and 7G, to unknown effect. > So great news, the evidence that 5G is potentially unsafe isn't really there. The evidence that 5G is unsafe isn't there. The evidence that it is safe isn't there either. It's still "potentially unsafe".