6 ms·

Oh god...Marin NIMBYism is really crazy when it comes to that stuff. And there's a lot of conspiracy theory / 5G type stuff that goes on as well. Strange to thi

Oh god...Marin NIMBYism is really crazy when it comes to that stuff. And there's a lot of conspiracy theory / 5G type stuff that goes on as well. Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there).

davisr 6y ago
Well, they're not entirely wrong about the 5G. I understand many in this forum won't agree with me. From https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... > We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe > The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. > Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users. About the author: > Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.
- dekhn 6y ago
  Anything that cites the Ramazzini studies is suspect. They repeatedly make major methodological errors and nobody replicates their results.
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  Even if Moskowitz has a point, it is difficult to take him seriously when he associates himself with "Physicians for Safe Technology", a group which maintains the belief that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real thing. It is not. It has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical condition. https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ High levels of RF exposure can of course do damage, in the form of burns. Any seasoned amateur radio operator at some point in the progression of their hobby can surely attest to the pain of being "bitten" by an energized RF cable. But trying to promote the idea that cellphones are dangerous is just scaremongering. You'll absorb more energy in just a few seconds just by standing in a sunbeam.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    All is not just about energy absorbed or burns. There are reports of the space between cells becoming larger (less inter-cellular adhesion) because of RF, and this led to the conclusion that the blood-brain barrier was weakened due to some kinds of RF. I've not dig too much in the subject, but I understand that a leaky BBB would increase inflammation in the brain and penetration of many molecules (including carcinogenic). I don't know why all the rebuttals focus on energy absorption and absence of ionizing frequencies. Seems like the mechanism of toxicity, if any, has nothing to do with that.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      A lot of the active RF spectra that people are concerned about don't penetrate deep into your body. They're either absorbed by the skin, the fatty tissue underneath or at the least, by the bone in the skull and ribcage. The reason your phone keeps working when your body blocks the signal is that the signal bounces of other surfaces. Blocking signals with your body becomes more true as frequency (and bandwidth) goes up. 5G Wifi can't even properly penetrate dry wall, not even mentioning all that water and bone in your body. Beside that, below the infrared spectrum, it is unlikely that much damage is done by common RF signals; the energy in a quanta from that spectrum is too small to effectively do anything but heat molecules up a tiny bit. Photochemical effects, ie, things like chemical reactions being induced or cells reacting to the light, require atleast about 1Thz to work (low-end IR). The heating occurs primarly for frequencies between 30 and 120MHz, which is actively used but not by B2C commercial things, it largely involves ham radio, air traffic radio, sea traffic, weather satellites, etc. Things you're likely to be closer to the receiving end of than the high powered sender. Which also bring to the other issue; the energies in common RF close to you is too low. If you send with 100mW power, the power your body will capture, even if it's the phone right next to your ear, is likely below 10mW of power. Low enough that your native body heat already overpowers it easily.
rbanffy 6y ago
It's clear not enough is being invested in schools, in particular the science curriculum.
- shard972 6y ago
  We are talking about startups though? Should Ycombinator be teaching people that 5g doesn't spread corona-virus? Or maybe these people shouldn't be in control of such companies.
- bgorman 6y ago
  Enough is being invested, it is just being spent extremely poorly. No country gets less per dollar on education than the US. A good start would be supporting school choice so the public school's monopoly and cost structure can be challenged.
  - duhuh 6y ago
    Like the choice we all have in healthcare? No thanks
  - jychang 6y ago
    Literally every other country in the world has a fully public education that does just fine. I think the only well known non-US private school system (off the top of my head) are UK commonwealth secondary boarding schools, and those schools are more well known for their abuse than their academic strength. Pretty much any other country (for example, France, Japan, China, etc) are generally built on a system of publicly funded schools
    - httpsterio 6y ago
      Finland as well, we don't basically have private or boarding schools at all.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        A good indicator whether public schools are good enough is this - the moment private schools can't compete, then public schools are good enough. Private for-profit schools can use their money to get political influence and reduce public school funding in order to further its economic advantage.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 6y ago
> Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there). As someone who lives in Marin I’m not sure where you got this idea. Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. They probably paid less than 300k for their home.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. 64.1% of those in the county 16 or older are in the labor force. Most people living in Marin County are not retired. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycalifornia/LFE041218 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycali...
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Most of the homeowners are probably retired and bought it for <300k. Which is related, but not totally, to who lives there.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      The funny thing about this whole story is that this whole story has a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve any conspiracies at all: "We told the California Public Utilities Commission of a 4,700-MW need through 2022 and that gap started in 2020. Despite all that, only 3,300 MW was authorized for procurement and none starting until 2021," Berberich said during a special telephone conference the Cal-ISO Board of Governors held Aug. 17, following a weekend during which the grid operator twice conducted rotating blackouts because of high demand and tightening reserves. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081720-grid-operator-cal-iso-says-generation-shortfall-might-prompt-more-blackouts https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... It's weird that none of the 'experts' in the news could figure this out and we've gone to blaming random homeowners, electric lines, 5G and everything else in this story without this information even coming up.
  - deleted 6y ago
raxxorrax 6y ago
There is a lot of mysticism around electromagnetism, but I wouldn't want to live under a high voltage line either. But that would probably be irrelevant for substations and you could isolate lines from populated areas with not problem. I think the issue is probably because there is little will for investments.

davisr 6y ago

Well, they're not entirely wrong about the 5G. I understand many in this forum won't agree with me. From https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... > We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe > The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. > Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users. About the author: > Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.

dekhn 6y ago
Anything that cites the Ramazzini studies is suspect. They repeatedly make major methodological errors and nobody replicates their results.
LeoPanthera 6y ago
Even if Moskowitz has a point, it is difficult to take him seriously when he associates himself with "Physicians for Safe Technology", a group which maintains the belief that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real thing. It is not. It has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical condition. https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ High levels of RF exposure can of course do damage, in the form of burns. Any seasoned amateur radio operator at some point in the progression of their hobby can surely attest to the pain of being "bitten" by an energized RF cable. But trying to promote the idea that cellphones are dangerous is just scaremongering. You'll absorb more energy in just a few seconds just by standing in a sunbeam.
- henearkr 6y ago
  All is not just about energy absorbed or burns. There are reports of the space between cells becoming larger (less inter-cellular adhesion) because of RF, and this led to the conclusion that the blood-brain barrier was weakened due to some kinds of RF. I've not dig too much in the subject, but I understand that a leaky BBB would increase inflammation in the brain and penetration of many molecules (including carcinogenic). I don't know why all the rebuttals focus on energy absorption and absence of ionizing frequencies. Seems like the mechanism of toxicity, if any, has nothing to do with that.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    A lot of the active RF spectra that people are concerned about don't penetrate deep into your body. They're either absorbed by the skin, the fatty tissue underneath or at the least, by the bone in the skull and ribcage. The reason your phone keeps working when your body blocks the signal is that the signal bounces of other surfaces. Blocking signals with your body becomes more true as frequency (and bandwidth) goes up. 5G Wifi can't even properly penetrate dry wall, not even mentioning all that water and bone in your body. Beside that, below the infrared spectrum, it is unlikely that much damage is done by common RF signals; the energy in a quanta from that spectrum is too small to effectively do anything but heat molecules up a tiny bit. Photochemical effects, ie, things like chemical reactions being induced or cells reacting to the light, require atleast about 1Thz to work (low-end IR). The heating occurs primarly for frequencies between 30 and 120MHz, which is actively used but not by B2C commercial things, it largely involves ham radio, air traffic radio, sea traffic, weather satellites, etc. Things you're likely to be closer to the receiving end of than the high powered sender. Which also bring to the other issue; the energies in common RF close to you is too low. If you send with 100mW power, the power your body will capture, even if it's the phone right next to your ear, is likely below 10mW of power. Low enough that your native body heat already overpowers it easily.

rbanffy 6y ago

It's clear not enough is being invested in schools, in particular the science curriculum.

shard972 6y ago
We are talking about startups though? Should Ycombinator be teaching people that 5g doesn't spread corona-virus? Or maybe these people shouldn't be in control of such companies.
bgorman 6y ago
Enough is being invested, it is just being spent extremely poorly. No country gets less per dollar on education than the US. A good start would be supporting school choice so the public school's monopoly and cost structure can be challenged.
- duhuh 6y ago
  Like the choice we all have in healthcare? No thanks
- jychang 6y ago
  Literally every other country in the world has a fully public education that does just fine. I think the only well known non-US private school system (off the top of my head) are UK commonwealth secondary boarding schools, and those schools are more well known for their abuse than their academic strength. Pretty much any other country (for example, France, Japan, China, etc) are generally built on a system of publicly funded schools
  - httpsterio 6y ago
    Finland as well, we don't basically have private or boarding schools at all.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      A good indicator whether public schools are good enough is this - the moment private schools can't compete, then public schools are good enough. Private for-profit schools can use their money to get political influence and reduce public school funding in order to further its economic advantage.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

almost_usual 6y ago

> Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there). As someone who lives in Marin I’m not sure where you got this idea. Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. They probably paid less than 300k for their home.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. 64.1% of those in the county 16 or older are in the labor force. Most people living in Marin County are not retired. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycalifornia/LFE041218 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycali...
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Most of the homeowners are probably retired and bought it for <300k. Which is related, but not totally, to who lives there.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    The funny thing about this whole story is that this whole story has a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve any conspiracies at all: "We told the California Public Utilities Commission of a 4,700-MW need through 2022 and that gap started in 2020. Despite all that, only 3,300 MW was authorized for procurement and none starting until 2021," Berberich said during a special telephone conference the Cal-ISO Board of Governors held Aug. 17, following a weekend during which the grid operator twice conducted rotating blackouts because of high demand and tightening reserves. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081720-grid-operator-cal-iso-says-generation-shortfall-might-prompt-more-blackouts https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... It's weird that none of the 'experts' in the news could figure this out and we've gone to blaming random homeowners, electric lines, 5G and everything else in this story without this information even coming up.
- deleted 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

There is a lot of mysticism around electromagnetism, but I wouldn't want to live under a high voltage line either. But that would probably be irrelevant for substations and you could isolate lines from populated areas with not problem. I think the issue is probably because there is little will for investments.