5 ms·

Preface 1: I think the evidence points to that 5G is probably safe Preface 2: I do think we should tend to err on the side caution. I fear in 40 years we will

by _red 7y ago

Preface 1: I think the evidence points to that 5G is probably safe Preface 2: I do think we should tend to err on the side caution. I fear in 40 years we will look back at our blind rush into many forms of tech incredulously (ie. can you believe in 2020 everyone had wifi installed in their homes? next to their kids?!?) Having said all that, who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort?

meowface 7y ago
If 5G is dangerous, then non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation in general is more dangerous than we thought. I don't think this is impossible, but so far the evidence doesn't seem strong.
- ip26 7y ago
  The evidence isn't strong. That said 5G does expose you to more base station radiation than ever before, with cells of up to 120W and a cell every neighborhood block. Compare to 4G with cells of 20W and a cell every city block or two. So to me it's always seemed rational to at least revisit the question and reaffirm it's still fine. We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine, or once believed to be harmful! Trans fats, asbestos, lead, sun, saturated fats, sugar, exercise, etc etc. Though, the antenna in your phone exposes you to more radiation than the base station, so that's probably the more important question. Perhaps with higher base station density, the mobile devices actually reduce output.
  - __s 7y ago
    Challenge of revisting these questions is there can't be someone getting involved who's bet all their chips on the answer beforehand
  - _red 7y ago
    Typically the debate centers around "non-ionizing radiation is safe" and strictly speaking that's probably 100% true. >We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine That is my concern. Specifically that the "non-ionizing radiation" is a red-herring. Its possible that EMF exposure effects cells in another way that we've yet to realize. As a poor analogy: Arguing that being exposed to constant visible light on the basis that "Light is non-ionizing" misses the fact that constant visible light disrupts the circadian rhythm which has a host of other ill-effects. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we ban something on a fear, but given the enormous potential cost if we get it wrong, it should be thoroughly studied.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      The big difference between visible light and 5G in this case is humans are known to be capable of sensing visible light, while no person has ever demonstrated the ability to sense radio waves like 5G signals. Of course we can't sense gamma radiation either, but in the case of ionizing radiation we at least have solid evidence humans can be harmed by it. But for radio waves? There's nothing, no hint of how any harm might occur, short of being put in a microwave oven and receiving thermal burns.
      - meowface 7y ago
        > But for radio waves? There's nothing, no hint of how any harm might occur, short of being put in a microwave oven and receiving thermal burns. To preface: I don't think there's any evidence at this time that standard levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are harmful to humans. But it's not inconceivable that there could be some harm caused which we're not aware of yet and which is eventually discovered in the future. The body and brain are extremely complex and not fully understood, etc. Molecular biology is sensitive. It's not implausible that there could hypothetically be certain chemical reactions or cell processes which are subtly disrupted by certain frequency bands at certain amplitudes. I personally don't think there will be such a finding, but people still need to keep an open mind, I think.
    - meowface 7y ago
      True, I think it's important for people to distinguish that. "The waves can't ionize, so you shouldn't be worried" is a counter-argument I often see, and it really isn't a good one. The entire point is to try to identify what other potential harm electromagnetic radiation could cause beyond ionization. It definitely needs to be thoroughly studied. But to my understanding, the past decades of study into it haven't revealed any harmful effects so far, at the energy levels that humans are generally exposed to. I do think it should continue to be studied in different ways, but given the current knowledge, I don't think people should feel very concerned about it.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    I operated a 1KW 100 MHz transmitter in my 'bad boy' days, my children all seem to have the right number of heads. And that thing would fry pigeons if I forgot to give the rotor a shake before switching on the end stage. Less than 5 meters from me most of the time.
    - meowface 7y ago
      I think it's very likely that such EMF isn't harmful and the current body of evidence is correct, but "I was exposed and I seem fine" is always an argument people use for things like this. For one, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean anything about others' specific situations (exposure, direction/angle, their genetics, etc.), but more importantly, it's very possible that one may not ever actually detect certain subtle harmful long-term changes. Someone exposed to low levels of lead poisoning over many years may not notice anything's happening to them. If after 10 years their memory isn't quite what it used to be, yet it's still mostly fine, they'll likely just chalk it up to aging.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Yes, it is obviously anecdata. N=1 and all that. But trust me, 1KW is nothing to sneeze at, the fluorescent tubes in the building I was in would light up spontaneously, as would those as far as I could see wherever the antenna would point. A couple of blocks at least. So if there was a direct effect and not just some very low statistical one you would expect to see a case like that register. This is not unlike smoking where chugging 4 packs per day tends to have consequences. And then of course, everybody has that great-uncle who did smoke 4 packs per day and still runs the half marathon at 85. Maybe I'm that guy, but I think that the whole EM->cell or DNA interaction is a load of bunk until you get into extreme power at very short range. A KW of HF when you touch it or less than that at GHz+ ranges and you will do real damage to tissue, I have the scar to prove that one. The induced power falls off very rapidly with distance, especially for omni-directional radiators. The 120' antennae that are common on cell phone installations have relatively low efficiency and 100W or so of radiated power per antenna, maybe 105W at the foot of the mast but unless there is some kind of giant impedance mismatch and if there is then you'll just fry an end stage.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    That 4G cell of 20W at a couple of meters and even that 120W 5G cell is still absolutely nothing compared to the cell phone you hold against your head.
- Lammy 7y ago
  Dangerous toward humans, or toward the environment in general? I worry we as a species haven't fully thought about the effect we are having on other species, like killing bees and deafening marine life.
- drummer 6y ago
  Read from page 6 to 7 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/6461...
npo9 7y ago
Imagine a world where one county underfunds infrastructure because of 5G health fears, but another country does not. Wouldn’t the county that implemented the infrastructure have a competitive advantage?
- adventured 7y ago
  There are two angles of potential for who benefits. 1) Misdirection. Someone trying to muddy the waters of blame related to SARS-CoV-2. In that case, almost anything other than the truth will be useful. Chaos of information is ideal if that's your goal. Try to shatter the consensus. Unleash, entice, the people prone to extremes on conspiracy theories, let them do the work of spraying non-sense everywhere. Moderately effective and at very little cost, all they require is a gentle nudge at a time like this. 2) Degrade competitors when it comes to their deployment of technology (5G in this case). A small erosion is a large potential benefit over time. Once you have an advantage, keep pressing it forward.
elevenoh 7y ago
I like that you're open to holding ambiguity around this. There are few things we should proclaim with certainty, and "5g is 100% biologically harmless" doesn't seem to be one of them, yet. >who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort? Some: Scientist who've staked their reputation against 5g, disadvantaged telecom co's, conspiracy theorists/media who prey on fear, gov't who don't like the social direction connectivity is taking us (populus' can 'wake up' increasingly quickly).
eli 7y ago
Well, in 2016 Russia thought they would benefit from promoting racial tensions in the US though e.g. bogus Blue Lives Matter online groups. It was a major focus of their election interference campaign (source: Senate Intelligence Report). Turning neighbors against each other over bogus health concerns feels like it's in the same ballpark.
- downshun 7y ago
  Destabilization by mutual mistrust Casting the narrative into an easier to manipulate one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYkEqDp760 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYkEqDp760
stagger87 7y ago
> Having said all that, who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort? In attempt to answer this question honestly, and I doubt any of these industries are actively pushing anti-5G propaganda, but cable companies, established cellular/wireless companies, and even the WiFi industry will benefit from an anti-5G message. They will all be affected if 5G lives up to it's promises.
temp12345el 6y ago
This is a nice patent application https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106643287A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106643287A/en but I really, really encourage you to read the cited papers from the 70's onwards(which is how I found that PA)

by _red 7y ago

meowface 7y ago

If 5G is dangerous, then non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation in general is more dangerous than we thought. I don't think this is impossible, but so far the evidence doesn't seem strong.

ip26 7y ago
The evidence isn't strong. That said 5G does expose you to more base station radiation than ever before, with cells of up to 120W and a cell every neighborhood block. Compare to 4G with cells of 20W and a cell every city block or two. So to me it's always seemed rational to at least revisit the question and reaffirm it's still fine. We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine, or once believed to be harmful! Trans fats, asbestos, lead, sun, saturated fats, sugar, exercise, etc etc. Though, the antenna in your phone exposes you to more radiation than the base station, so that's probably the more important question. Perhaps with higher base station density, the mobile devices actually reduce output.
- __s 7y ago
  Challenge of revisting these questions is there can't be someone getting involved who's bet all their chips on the answer beforehand
- _red 7y ago
  Typically the debate centers around "non-ionizing radiation is safe" and strictly speaking that's probably 100% true. >We've reversed course on plenty of things that were once believed to be fine That is my concern. Specifically that the "non-ionizing radiation" is a red-herring. Its possible that EMF exposure effects cells in another way that we've yet to realize. As a poor analogy: Arguing that being exposed to constant visible light on the basis that "Light is non-ionizing" misses the fact that constant visible light disrupts the circadian rhythm which has a host of other ill-effects. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we ban something on a fear, but given the enormous potential cost if we get it wrong, it should be thoroughly studied.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    The big difference between visible light and 5G in this case is humans are known to be capable of sensing visible light, while no person has ever demonstrated the ability to sense radio waves like 5G signals. Of course we can't sense gamma radiation either, but in the case of ionizing radiation we at least have solid evidence humans can be harmed by it. But for radio waves? There's nothing, no hint of how any harm might occur, short of being put in a microwave oven and receiving thermal burns.
    - meowface 7y ago
      > But for radio waves? There's nothing, no hint of how any harm might occur, short of being put in a microwave oven and receiving thermal burns. To preface: I don't think there's any evidence at this time that standard levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are harmful to humans. But it's not inconceivable that there could be some harm caused which we're not aware of yet and which is eventually discovered in the future. The body and brain are extremely complex and not fully understood, etc. Molecular biology is sensitive. It's not implausible that there could hypothetically be certain chemical reactions or cell processes which are subtly disrupted by certain frequency bands at certain amplitudes. I personally don't think there will be such a finding, but people still need to keep an open mind, I think.
  - meowface 7y ago
    True, I think it's important for people to distinguish that. "The waves can't ionize, so you shouldn't be worried" is a counter-argument I often see, and it really isn't a good one. The entire point is to try to identify what other potential harm electromagnetic radiation could cause beyond ionization. It definitely needs to be thoroughly studied. But to my understanding, the past decades of study into it haven't revealed any harmful effects so far, at the energy levels that humans are generally exposed to. I do think it should continue to be studied in different ways, but given the current knowledge, I don't think people should feel very concerned about it.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  I operated a 1KW 100 MHz transmitter in my 'bad boy' days, my children all seem to have the right number of heads. And that thing would fry pigeons if I forgot to give the rotor a shake before switching on the end stage. Less than 5 meters from me most of the time.
  - meowface 7y ago
    I think it's very likely that such EMF isn't harmful and the current body of evidence is correct, but "I was exposed and I seem fine" is always an argument people use for things like this. For one, even if that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean anything about others' specific situations (exposure, direction/angle, their genetics, etc.), but more importantly, it's very possible that one may not ever actually detect certain subtle harmful long-term changes. Someone exposed to low levels of lead poisoning over many years may not notice anything's happening to them. If after 10 years their memory isn't quite what it used to be, yet it's still mostly fine, they'll likely just chalk it up to aging.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Yes, it is obviously anecdata. N=1 and all that. But trust me, 1KW is nothing to sneeze at, the fluorescent tubes in the building I was in would light up spontaneously, as would those as far as I could see wherever the antenna would point. A couple of blocks at least. So if there was a direct effect and not just some very low statistical one you would expect to see a case like that register. This is not unlike smoking where chugging 4 packs per day tends to have consequences. And then of course, everybody has that great-uncle who did smoke 4 packs per day and still runs the half marathon at 85. Maybe I'm that guy, but I think that the whole EM->cell or DNA interaction is a load of bunk until you get into extreme power at very short range. A KW of HF when you touch it or less than that at GHz+ ranges and you will do real damage to tissue, I have the scar to prove that one. The induced power falls off very rapidly with distance, especially for omni-directional radiators. The 120' antennae that are common on cell phone installations have relatively low efficiency and 100W or so of radiated power per antenna, maybe 105W at the foot of the mast but unless there is some kind of giant impedance mismatch and if there is then you'll just fry an end stage.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That 4G cell of 20W at a couple of meters and even that 120W 5G cell is still absolutely nothing compared to the cell phone you hold against your head.
Lammy 7y ago
Dangerous toward humans, or toward the environment in general? I worry we as a species haven't fully thought about the effect we are having on other species, like killing bees and deafening marine life.
drummer 6y ago
Read from page 6 to 7 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/6461...

npo9 7y ago

Imagine a world where one county underfunds infrastructure because of 5G health fears, but another country does not. Wouldn’t the county that implemented the infrastructure have a competitive advantage?

adventured 7y ago
There are two angles of potential for who benefits. 1) Misdirection. Someone trying to muddy the waters of blame related to SARS-CoV-2. In that case, almost anything other than the truth will be useful. Chaos of information is ideal if that's your goal. Try to shatter the consensus. Unleash, entice, the people prone to extremes on conspiracy theories, let them do the work of spraying non-sense everywhere. Moderately effective and at very little cost, all they require is a gentle nudge at a time like this. 2) Degrade competitors when it comes to their deployment of technology (5G in this case). A small erosion is a large potential benefit over time. Once you have an advantage, keep pressing it forward.

elevenoh 7y ago

I like that you're open to holding ambiguity around this. There are few things we should proclaim with certainty, and "5g is 100% biologically harmless" doesn't seem to be one of them, yet. >who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort? Some: Scientist who've staked their reputation against 5g, disadvantaged telecom co's, conspiracy theorists/media who prey on fear, gov't who don't like the social direction connectivity is taking us (populus' can 'wake up' increasingly quickly).

eli 7y ago

Well, in 2016 Russia thought they would benefit from promoting racial tensions in the US though e.g. bogus Blue Lives Matter online groups. It was a major focus of their election interference campaign (source: Senate Intelligence Report). Turning neighbors against each other over bogus health concerns feels like it's in the same ballpark.

downshun 7y ago
Destabilization by mutual mistrust Casting the narrative into an easier to manipulate one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYkEqDp760 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYkEqDp760

stagger87 7y ago

> Having said all that, who benefits from the "anti-5G" coordinated effort? In attempt to answer this question honestly, and I doubt any of these industries are actively pushing anti-5G propaganda, but cable companies, established cellular/wireless companies, and even the WiFi industry will benefit from an anti-5G message. They will all be affected if 5G lives up to it's promises.

temp12345el 6y ago

This is a nice patent application https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106643287A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/CN106643287A/en but I really, really encourage you to read the cited papers from the 70's onwards(which is how I found that PA)