6 ms·

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-ha

by 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.
nrki 6y ago
Not a great source. Science is based on evidence, not lack of evidence. A rebuttal to that article appears in the same publication, and adroitly takes apart it's claims: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-...
- davisr 6y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know about this article. I'm not heavily one way or the other, but I think it's important to put all the information out there.
  - noodlesUK 6y ago
    This particular feeling, of having a compulsion to share scary information without a strong knowledge base, and then retreating to this sort of position “I think it’s important to put all the information out there” is well described, specifically on this topic, by a recent post by Troy hunt. https://www.troyhunt.com/lets-stop-the-5g-hysteria-understanding-hoaxes-and-disinformation-campaigns/ https://www.troyhunt.com/lets-stop-the-5g-hysteria-understan...
    - davisr 6y ago
      Well, from me it wasn't a strong compulsion. However, for many reasons (especially about privacy) we ought not to implement 5G. And this wasn't an article about some conspiracy--it was from an expert who is advising we tread cautiously about what we do not know, and that is very good advice. I don't think anyone can confirm or deny that 5G carries health risks. But, we do have evidence there are health risks with other cellular communication technologies, and we ought to use that as a basis for decision making.
      - forgotmysn 6y ago
        1. it was strong enough for you to post 2. please try to explain the security issues that 5G presents that aren't present in 4G, 3G, etc. 3. a lack of information is not an excuse to promote doubt and misinformation. part of the reason we haven't been able to measure the long-term effects of cellular radiation is that it takes time to run those studies. please stop promoting lies and undermining trust in the systems that help manage our society
aaronAgain 6y ago
"so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. " Quoting a US senator on technology is not exactly a strong argument. Like arguing about email security and quoting a senator on the technology committee saying he has never sent an email. https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-09-lindsey-graham-never-sent-email.html https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-09-lindsey-graham-never-sen... In many cases senators are the least possible informed people on a topic, and are almost certainly not focused on the pure science of an issue. Quoting one of them pretty much means you are trying to sway me by using their position, not research. Also, nothing that you quoted about 5G actually says it is unsafe. Saying that 2G and 3G are unsafe and that we don't know what 4G does, and that government doesn't want to investigate 5G, and that tumors of a certain type 'may be at least partially attributable' to cell phone radiation, and all of the other slights, all of that doesn't add up to 5G is unsafe. This is the direct rebut to the article you linked, even from the same site. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-... > On the strength of epidemiological evidence, cancer fears are dangerously misguided: While American cell-phone usage has grown from virtually zero in 1992 to virtually 100 percent by 2008, there has been no indication that glioma rates have increased proportionally in the same period—a nonrelationship replicated by numerous other studies. About the author > David Robert Grimes is a cancer researcher, physicist, and John Maddox Prize–winning science writer. He is based at Dublin City University and is a visiting researcher at the University of Oxford. He advises, across Europe, on the public understanding of science, particularly on vaccination policy and combatting cancer misinformation. His first book, The Irrational Ape: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk, and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World, is now available from Simon & Schuster UK.
- ponker 6y ago
  > a senator on the technology committee saying he has never sent an email Senators who don't send emails don't do so because they don't know how to send emails -- they do it because they're doing seriously fucked up stuff and don't want a paper trail. As the fictional drug kingpin Stringer Bell says in The Wire -- "is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?"
- Mister_X 6y ago
Rebelgecko 6y ago
>two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats If this is the study I'm thinking of, it's suspect for 3 reasons. 1. First off, the study didn't test against 5G. It used 2G and 3G emissions. Even if you believe the study, it doesn't make sense to use it as a reason to stick with 3G instead of 5G. 2. The study tested male rats, female rats, male mice, and female mice. Only male rats were allegedly impacted by radio signals. If 3G is so universally dangerous to living tissue, why did it only impact one of the species tested? And only the males of that species? Sidenote- the mice were actually exposed to more energy than the rats 3. Even though the male rats exposed to 2G and 3G were more likely to get cancer, they also lived longer than unexposed rats. Male rats exposed to 3G lived nearly 10% longer than ones that weren't. If this life extending capability also applies to 5G signals, we should be accelerating 5G deployment.
- Natsu 6y ago
  > The study tested male rats, female rats, male mice, and female mice. Only male rats were allegedly impacted by radio signals. If 3G is so universally dangerous to living tissue, why did it only impact one of the species tested? That's explained pretty well by this - https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
beders 6y ago
Coulomb barrier - how to overcome it with radiation like that? Exactly, not at the energy levels a cell phone user is subjected to. Why isn't that the end of the story?
- zaarn 6y ago
  It's like with homeopathy; it's effect cannot be measured beyond base background noise, but plenty of people believe it affects their bodies anyway.

by davisr 6y ago

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.

nrki 6y ago

Not a great source. Science is based on evidence, not lack of evidence. A rebuttal to that article appears in the same publication, and adroitly takes apart it's claims: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-...

davisr 6y ago
Thanks, I didn't know about this article. I'm not heavily one way or the other, but I think it's important to put all the information out there.
- noodlesUK 6y ago
  This particular feeling, of having a compulsion to share scary information without a strong knowledge base, and then retreating to this sort of position “I think it’s important to put all the information out there” is well described, specifically on this topic, by a recent post by Troy hunt. https://www.troyhunt.com/lets-stop-the-5g-hysteria-understanding-hoaxes-and-disinformation-campaigns/ https://www.troyhunt.com/lets-stop-the-5g-hysteria-understan...
  - davisr 6y ago
    Well, from me it wasn't a strong compulsion. However, for many reasons (especially about privacy) we ought not to implement 5G. And this wasn't an article about some conspiracy--it was from an expert who is advising we tread cautiously about what we do not know, and that is very good advice. I don't think anyone can confirm or deny that 5G carries health risks. But, we do have evidence there are health risks with other cellular communication technologies, and we ought to use that as a basis for decision making.
    - forgotmysn 6y ago
      1. it was strong enough for you to post 2. please try to explain the security issues that 5G presents that aren't present in 4G, 3G, etc. 3. a lack of information is not an excuse to promote doubt and misinformation. part of the reason we haven't been able to measure the long-term effects of cellular radiation is that it takes time to run those studies. please stop promoting lies and undermining trust in the systems that help manage our society

aaronAgain 6y ago

"so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. " Quoting a US senator on technology is not exactly a strong argument. Like arguing about email security and quoting a senator on the technology committee saying he has never sent an email. https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-09-lindsey-graham-never-sent-email.html https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-09-lindsey-graham-never-sen... In many cases senators are the least possible informed people on a topic, and are almost certainly not focused on the pure science of an issue. Quoting one of them pretty much means you are trying to sway me by using their position, not research. Also, nothing that you quoted about 5G actually says it is unsafe. Saying that 2G and 3G are unsafe and that we don't know what 4G does, and that government doesn't want to investigate 5G, and that tumors of a certain type 'may be at least partially attributable' to cell phone radiation, and all of the other slights, all of that doesn't add up to 5G is unsafe. This is the direct rebut to the article you linked, even from the same site. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-... > On the strength of epidemiological evidence, cancer fears are dangerously misguided: While American cell-phone usage has grown from virtually zero in 1992 to virtually 100 percent by 2008, there has been no indication that glioma rates have increased proportionally in the same period—a nonrelationship replicated by numerous other studies. About the author > David Robert Grimes is a cancer researcher, physicist, and John Maddox Prize–winning science writer. He is based at Dublin City University and is a visiting researcher at the University of Oxford. He advises, across Europe, on the public understanding of science, particularly on vaccination policy and combatting cancer misinformation. His first book, The Irrational Ape: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk, and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World, is now available from Simon & Schuster UK.

ponker 6y ago
> a senator on the technology committee saying he has never sent an email Senators who don't send emails don't do so because they don't know how to send emails -- they do it because they're doing seriously fucked up stuff and don't want a paper trail. As the fictional drug kingpin Stringer Bell says in The Wire -- "is you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?"
Mister_X 6y ago

Rebelgecko 6y ago

>two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats If this is the study I'm thinking of, it's suspect for 3 reasons. 1. First off, the study didn't test against 5G. It used 2G and 3G emissions. Even if you believe the study, it doesn't make sense to use it as a reason to stick with 3G instead of 5G. 2. The study tested male rats, female rats, male mice, and female mice. Only male rats were allegedly impacted by radio signals. If 3G is so universally dangerous to living tissue, why did it only impact one of the species tested? And only the males of that species? Sidenote- the mice were actually exposed to more energy than the rats 3. Even though the male rats exposed to 2G and 3G were more likely to get cancer, they also lived longer than unexposed rats. Male rats exposed to 3G lived nearly 10% longer than ones that weren't. If this life extending capability also applies to 5G signals, we should be accelerating 5G deployment.

Natsu 6y ago
> The study tested male rats, female rats, male mice, and female mice. Only male rats were allegedly impacted by radio signals. If 3G is so universally dangerous to living tissue, why did it only impact one of the species tested? That's explained pretty well by this - https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/

beders 6y ago

Coulomb barrier - how to overcome it with radiation like that? Exactly, not at the energy levels a cell phone user is subjected to. Why isn't that the end of the story?

zaarn 6y ago
It's like with homeopathy; it's effect cannot be measured beyond base background noise, but plenty of people believe it affects their bodies anyway.