5 ms·

How bizarre, I'd been led to believe wireless energy was completely harmless; safe to use in the home, upon ones person daily and even distribute randomly in co

How bizarre, I'd been led to believe wireless energy was completely harmless; safe to use in the home, upon ones person daily and even distribute randomly in concentrated areas en masse without coordination. And further, I thought I was in the right that anyone claiming otherwise was paranoid and misinformed. Oh, look, this information is even coming from the same news services that previously told me it was completely safe. It's almost like the X-ray thing all over again. Or smoking. Or DDT. Or...

scoot_718 6y ago
How did you get to this site without some basic understanding of wireless technology?
mhh__ 6y ago
No, it's the scientists who are wrong! Wireless "energy" worldwide doesn't even get close to exposure limits, let alone be medically harmful in any measurable way.
polotics 6y ago
Are you serious? Do you know the difference between a milliwatt and a megawatt?
- txmachinery 6y ago
  Yes, and do you know the difference between science and conjecture? Practice and theory? Done any research into people who are medically hyper-sensitive, sometimes at the milliwatt level, to RF energy? Is it possible that the cumulative effects of compounded milliwatts could potentially have harmful effects, that have yet to be sufficiently studied or understood? Maybe. I'm not at all suggesting there is a massive conspiracy to do whatever to everyone by deploying 5G or Wifi or whatever else. But I am saying that "move fast and break things" is an irresponsible modus operandi when the things might be us. The race for faster and make more money does NOT have a good history of safety for us, nor the planet. Proceed with caution, and value those who doubt. What have you got to lose? Your Netflix buffering 2 seconds faster? And you think I'm crazy?
  - Jabbles 6y ago
    research into people who are medically hyper-sensitive There has been research - these people don't exist. https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health--electromagnetic-hypersensitivity https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea...
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > research into people who are medically hyper-sensitive > There has been research - these people don't exist. OTOH, RF reception through dental fillings or bridgework is a bit more plausible.
    - txmachinery 6y ago
      Or they do, are rare, and haven't yet been reliably identified: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31640707/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31640707/ The fact that the "new name" (IEI) seems to ignore/discredit the primary claims of the sufferers at the outset, and that a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar industry would somewhat prefer these people don't exist, I remain skeptical of recent studies. (A view no doubt also biased by personal experience.) That older studies show the effect, and newer ones don't isn't a smoking gun, but it is a cause for skepticism. At least, one thing almost all studies agree on is "more research is required".
      - Jabbles 6y ago
        Your link does not support that - whilst it admits the possibility that the effects "must be very weak or affect only few individuals" it does not suggest that "more research is required", and suggests that other environmental factors or the nocebo effect is to blame. I read the last sentence of the conclusion as suggesting that researchers stop wasting their time with false reports due to poor experimental setup. You have the need for scepticism round the wrong way. Scepticism is needed when dealing with claims that some humans can detect radio frequencies, despite no single human that has been tested being able to demonstrate such a skill, and no proposed mechanism for how this should be possible.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  You are a moron, has anyone told you that?
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
I agree, most people dismiss claims of harm because they themselves are not personally affected by it ( example perfumes, allergies). Or do not see the immediate effects of it. ( eg. DDT ). Greed,ignorance and mostly stupidity plays a role here. Further they turn the tables and ask for proof of harm of the technology in question, instead of having to prove proof of harmlessness (which can be done but they do not do it). >It's almost like the X-ray thing all over again. Or smoking. Or DDT History repeats very reliably.

scoot_718 6y ago

How did you get to this site without some basic understanding of wireless technology?

mhh__ 6y ago

No, it's the scientists who are wrong! Wireless "energy" worldwide doesn't even get close to exposure limits, let alone be medically harmful in any measurable way.

polotics 6y ago

Are you serious? Do you know the difference between a milliwatt and a megawatt?

txmachinery 6y ago
Yes, and do you know the difference between science and conjecture? Practice and theory? Done any research into people who are medically hyper-sensitive, sometimes at the milliwatt level, to RF energy? Is it possible that the cumulative effects of compounded milliwatts could potentially have harmful effects, that have yet to be sufficiently studied or understood? Maybe. I'm not at all suggesting there is a massive conspiracy to do whatever to everyone by deploying 5G or Wifi or whatever else. But I am saying that "move fast and break things" is an irresponsible modus operandi when the things might be us. The race for faster and make more money does NOT have a good history of safety for us, nor the planet. Proceed with caution, and value those who doubt. What have you got to lose? Your Netflix buffering 2 seconds faster? And you think I'm crazy?
- Jabbles 6y ago
  research into people who are medically hyper-sensitive There has been research - these people don't exist. https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health--electromagnetic-hypersensitivity https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea...
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > research into people who are medically hyper-sensitive > There has been research - these people don't exist. OTOH, RF reception through dental fillings or bridgework is a bit more plausible.
  - txmachinery 6y ago
    Or they do, are rare, and haven't yet been reliably identified: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31640707/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31640707/ The fact that the "new name" (IEI) seems to ignore/discredit the primary claims of the sufferers at the outset, and that a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar industry would somewhat prefer these people don't exist, I remain skeptical of recent studies. (A view no doubt also biased by personal experience.) That older studies show the effect, and newer ones don't isn't a smoking gun, but it is a cause for skepticism. At least, one thing almost all studies agree on is "more research is required".
    - Jabbles 6y ago
      Your link does not support that - whilst it admits the possibility that the effects "must be very weak or affect only few individuals" it does not suggest that "more research is required", and suggests that other environmental factors or the nocebo effect is to blame. I read the last sentence of the conclusion as suggesting that researchers stop wasting their time with false reports due to poor experimental setup. You have the need for scepticism round the wrong way. Scepticism is needed when dealing with claims that some humans can detect radio frequencies, despite no single human that has been tested being able to demonstrate such a skill, and no proposed mechanism for how this should be possible.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
You are a moron, has anyone told you that?

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

I agree, most people dismiss claims of harm because they themselves are not personally affected by it ( example perfumes, allergies). Or do not see the immediate effects of it. ( eg. DDT ). Greed,ignorance and mostly stupidity plays a role here. Further they turn the tables and ask for proof of harm of the technology in question, instead of having to prove proof of harmlessness (which can be done but they do not do it). >It's almost like the X-ray thing all over again. Or smoking. Or DDT History repeats very reliably.