5 ms·

Yes, but the "other mechanisms" of EM harm you list do not apply to mm-waves. Imagine being wrapped in lead to protect your organs from harmful mm-waves. That's

by mNovak 6y ago

Yes, but the "other mechanisms" of EM harm you list do not apply to mm-waves. Imagine being wrapped in lead to protect your organs from harmful mm-waves. That's effectively already the case; mm-waves can't penetrate skin, eyes or anything else. Moreover, the power levels you're encountering from a base station are minuscule. It's underappreciated as a miracle of engineering that we can reliably communicate with signals that are 10^-12 W. You're at more danger from a 10W fluorescent light bulb.

owenversteeg 6y ago
>> mm-waves can't penetrate skin, eyes or anything else. Ah, I see you made the same mistake as basically everyone researching mm-waves: you forgot about babies. See, they're born with very thin skin, so mm-waves can go right through their dermis. Will that have any effects? Who knows! It'll be a long time till the first 5G babies will be in college. Furthermore, a lot of things are cumulative effects. Asbestos, of course, doesn't instantly kill you; asbestosis requires a large exposure over a long period of time. Look at the research around kHz EM waves and Alzheimer's, for example. We've all been near a HV line for few minutes, I'd bet. When they were invented, I'm sure people tested them by standing next to them for hours - they were fine, of course. Turns out you have to build up exposure over a period of some 15 years living next to a HV line... and then you have a 200% chance of Alzheimer's.
- BubRoss 6y ago
  Why do you think there is a risk to babies? What are you having that on specifically? It seems like you are reaching for something "untested". Also microwaves use 2.4Ghz, heat lamps are infrared, 5G is a wide array of spectrums, so what specific frequency and power do you think will harm babies and why? (Also if something just affects babies, it doesn't make sense to talk about the cumulative effects over decades)
  - owenversteeg 6y ago
    The established consensus is that mm-waves do penetrante the dermis of babies. Even recent research can agree on that. Here's one recent source. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimeter-Wave_Energy_as_Weapon https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimete... I do not believe that anything in the tens of GHz is either safe or unsafe. The frank reality is that we simply do not know, as not one person in human history has ever lived with a mm-wave source of any power for an extended period of time. With new RF technology, the burden is usually on the creators to demonstrate its safety, not random Internet commenters to prove its danger. I was hoping to have an actual discussion here, but I guess people would rather just blindly defend any new technology without even a cursory look at its safety.
    - BubRoss 6y ago
      That's not even remotely close to being a source for what you are saying. You need a source that shows that there is something different about babies, different about the 5G frequencies, and different from the light, infrared, microwave and radio frequencies that are currently being used everywhere. Instead, you referenced a paper on a military pain ray that uses focused super high power 100Kw 95Ghz waves that says it penetrates 1/64th of an inch. Your microwave is 2.4Ghz, just like your router, but it works at 1kw. There is an enormous gap between saying "what about babies" and what you linked. They have basically nothing to do with each other. I think you realize that, but you keep saying "we don't know", when you really mean "I don't know". > the burden is usually on the creators to demonstrate its safety How can anything be deomstrated to someone who ignores what they are being told and repeats "we just don't know" while supporting their predefined beliefs with giants leaps in logic and excessively irrelevant information? > I was hoping to have an actual discussion here I don't believe you. You didn't even confront my original question of what frequencies and effects you are specifically worried about. All you have seemed to being up so far is heat from power 100 times what your microwave uses. 100kw is 4,000 times the power of a soldering iron that can melt tin and lead.
      - owenversteeg 6y ago
        Oh come on. What I am saying - and I will repeat this - is "mm-waves do penetrate the dermis of human babies." No more, no less. This is the scientific consensus. I provided the first source I found, which related to military research, yes. The broader context is irrelevant, I'm not sure why you wrote a whole comment harping on that. I provided it as a simple counterpoint to someone saying that mm-waves did not penetrate skin. And the broader context of what I am saying is not that 5G is dangerous, just that there should be more effort to determine its safety before rolling out a new type of EM radiation that humans have _never lived with before_. Looks like I am not the only one saying existing studies do not cover things, and there is a need for further research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Oh cut it out. Everybody is made of water. Even babies. Nothing penetrates. "Think of the children!" is getting pretty tired sounding.
  - owenversteeg 6y ago
    Excuse me? Someone said mm-waves cannot go through skin. I mentioned that the scientific consensus is that babies' skin is thin enough that mm-waves penetrate the dermis. I was absolutely not starting a "think of the children". >> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. The established consensus is that mm-waves do penetrante the dermis of babies. Even recent research can agree on that. Here's one recent source. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimeter-Wave_Energy_as_Weapon https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimete...
    - ac29 6y ago
      Its hard to take your arguments seriously when you link to a paper on military research on a weapon that "can heat the skin to a temperature of 130F" and then compare it to cellular RF emissions, which would typically encounter your skin at a power level in the range of 10^-12W (-90dBm). It doesnt matter which layers of skin that does or doesnt penetrate, its just not going to do much of anything.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. Not cool. We've had to ask you this multiple times before. Continuing to do it will eventually get your account banned, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended from now on.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Yes, I regret that comment. I apologize.

by mNovak 6y ago

owenversteeg 6y ago

>> mm-waves can't penetrate skin, eyes or anything else. Ah, I see you made the same mistake as basically everyone researching mm-waves: you forgot about babies. See, they're born with very thin skin, so mm-waves can go right through their dermis. Will that have any effects? Who knows! It'll be a long time till the first 5G babies will be in college. Furthermore, a lot of things are cumulative effects. Asbestos, of course, doesn't instantly kill you; asbestosis requires a large exposure over a long period of time. Look at the research around kHz EM waves and Alzheimer's, for example. We've all been near a HV line for few minutes, I'd bet. When they were invented, I'm sure people tested them by standing next to them for hours - they were fine, of course. Turns out you have to build up exposure over a period of some 15 years living next to a HV line... and then you have a 200% chance of Alzheimer's.

BubRoss 6y ago
Why do you think there is a risk to babies? What are you having that on specifically? It seems like you are reaching for something "untested". Also microwaves use 2.4Ghz, heat lamps are infrared, 5G is a wide array of spectrums, so what specific frequency and power do you think will harm babies and why? (Also if something just affects babies, it doesn't make sense to talk about the cumulative effects over decades)
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  The established consensus is that mm-waves do penetrante the dermis of babies. Even recent research can agree on that. Here's one recent source. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimeter-Wave_Energy_as_Weapon https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimete... I do not believe that anything in the tens of GHz is either safe or unsafe. The frank reality is that we simply do not know, as not one person in human history has ever lived with a mm-wave source of any power for an extended period of time. With new RF technology, the burden is usually on the creators to demonstrate its safety, not random Internet commenters to prove its danger. I was hoping to have an actual discussion here, but I guess people would rather just blindly defend any new technology without even a cursory look at its safety.
  - BubRoss 6y ago
    That's not even remotely close to being a source for what you are saying. You need a source that shows that there is something different about babies, different about the 5G frequencies, and different from the light, infrared, microwave and radio frequencies that are currently being used everywhere. Instead, you referenced a paper on a military pain ray that uses focused super high power 100Kw 95Ghz waves that says it penetrates 1/64th of an inch. Your microwave is 2.4Ghz, just like your router, but it works at 1kw. There is an enormous gap between saying "what about babies" and what you linked. They have basically nothing to do with each other. I think you realize that, but you keep saying "we don't know", when you really mean "I don't know". > the burden is usually on the creators to demonstrate its safety How can anything be deomstrated to someone who ignores what they are being told and repeats "we just don't know" while supporting their predefined beliefs with giants leaps in logic and excessively irrelevant information? > I was hoping to have an actual discussion here I don't believe you. You didn't even confront my original question of what frequencies and effects you are specifically worried about. All you have seemed to being up so far is heat from power 100 times what your microwave uses. 100kw is 4,000 times the power of a soldering iron that can melt tin and lead.
    - owenversteeg 6y ago
      Oh come on. What I am saying - and I will repeat this - is "mm-waves do penetrate the dermis of human babies." No more, no less. This is the scientific consensus. I provided the first source I found, which related to military research, yes. The broader context is irrelevant, I'm not sure why you wrote a whole comment harping on that. I provided it as a simple counterpoint to someone saying that mm-waves did not penetrate skin. And the broader context of what I am saying is not that 5G is dangerous, just that there should be more effort to determine its safety before rolling out a new type of EM radiation that humans have _never lived with before_. Looks like I am not the only one saying existing studies do not cover things, and there is a need for further research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Oh cut it out. Everybody is made of water. Even babies. Nothing penetrates. "Think of the children!" is getting pretty tired sounding.
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  Excuse me? Someone said mm-waves cannot go through skin. I mentioned that the scientific consensus is that babies' skin is thin enough that mm-waves penetrate the dermis. I was absolutely not starting a "think of the children". >> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. The established consensus is that mm-waves do penetrante the dermis of babies. Even recent research can agree on that. Here's one recent source. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimeter-Wave_Energy_as_Weapon https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334078749_Millimete...
  - ac29 6y ago
    Its hard to take your arguments seriously when you link to a paper on military research on a weapon that "can heat the skin to a temperature of 130F" and then compare it to cellular RF emissions, which would typically encounter your skin at a power level in the range of 10^-12W (-90dBm). It doesnt matter which layers of skin that does or doesnt penetrate, its just not going to do much of anything.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. Not cool. We've had to ask you this multiple times before. Continuing to do it will eventually get your account banned, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended from now on.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Yes, I regret that comment. I apologize.