6 ms·

> There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. 100% agree with that one. > Any evidence of harm or

> There are plenty of people on the internet claiming 5g causes covid, etc who are extremely uncompelling. 100% agree with that one. > Any evidence of harm or a plausible theory of the mechanism for the harm How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm?

bawolff 6y ago
> How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm? Typically i would consider that the responsibility of the people advocating that 5g should not be deployed. In many ways the "how" doesn't really matter, what matters is how compelling the end product, the argument, is. That said, generally speaking you would go about it by taking what we know about how cells work, and what we know about how non-ionizing radiation works, and putting together a hypothesis about how damage could occur. Fundamentally, i think my issue with most of the anti-5g stuff is that the arguments tend not to apply to just 5g - they tend to be vauge enough that they would apply to almost anything. To be convinced, i would want an argument that applies to 5g but also objectively does not apply to say older cell phones or a space heater (unless the person was explicitly arguing that those other things are also unsafe).
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  That was not my question. My question was "if there is possibility of harm (that 5G can be harmful), how would you find it, identify what it is?"
  - bawolff 6y ago
    That's a weird question. My position is that there is no such harm, and thus it is impossible to find it, since it doesn't exist. If someone asked you the question: "if there is a possibility of harm from oak trees, how would you find it?" How would you answer that question? Is there any reasonable answer to such a question? Or for the sake of argument, how would you answer the question "If 1+1 = 3 how would you prove that"? I just don't see any reasonable answer to the question "assume a position you don't believe has any evidence for it, now provide the evidence for the position you dont believe in". If i was able to provide the evidence or even concieve of some way to obtain it, i wouldn't hold the view that the position is indefensible. That's not to say its impossible in general. If you asked, "if arsenic has any harm, how would you find out" i could easily answer with, eat a bunch and see what happens. But i can't generally create evidence for something just because i assume the proposition is true in a thought experiment, and i firmly believe that the onus is on the proponent of a position to provide the supporting evidence and theories.
    - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
      That kind of writing has the assumption that science is a closed book and that we already know everything, but we don't, and we are not even close to knowing. Materiel sciences, medicine, physics... are far from 1+1=2. Scientists are trying to ask questions and try to find answers, that is all. Not knowing what question to ask does not mean that there isn't an issue with something, it tells something else about us. > thus it is impossible to find it Entrenching our selves in beliefs just makes us dogmatic, and dogmatic people do not ask questions, they do not doubt in anything, they "know". Same in times of Spanish Inquisition and same today. Just different subjects. The same attitudes have people who believe that Earth is flat. No evidence can help there. As for every evidence - they will come up with something more delusional to confirm their own belief that Earth is flat. If you say let me take you to this rocket, so you can see the Earth, they would say "you projected picture on my helmet it is not real". Same goes with harmful things if you like meat you will believe that eating animals is good for them, that they do not suffer, do not have feelings etc. When we develop applications, we do not say, hey this application is impenetrable, it is the safest application in the world ever, it does not need testing, just ship it (I do not know what is your line of work). But we constantly ask how can we destroy what we just built. Be sure, if you do not do it some hacker out there will do it for you, and it will hurt significantly more. Yes, it is true these analogies are not the same; nature is infinitely more complex, and our knowledge even smaller. Issue is picking side. Scientist does not picks sides, s/he seeks questions and answers. I am not saying in any way that "5G is deadly run for your lives"; but I do say, as I said from the beginning of this thread, we do not know, and we need to do long term and short term exposure studies, so we can get more data. As without data you're just another person with an opinion. What to search? Many things, for every kind of molecule, compound, cell, tissue or body functionality, we should do a study. If that is too much, for a starter if we know that 5G penetrate skin for instance, than do all bits about the skin. Even if we do not find anything, we will probably learn something in the process... When I asked you the question, I was hopping you will follow scientific method, and say: explore, think, ask questions, find answers, do the research... In the end, something just 3 years ago. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years.... I wish you all the best.

bawolff 6y ago

> How would you create those? What is an usual way to find possibilities of harm? Typically i would consider that the responsibility of the people advocating that 5g should not be deployed. In many ways the "how" doesn't really matter, what matters is how compelling the end product, the argument, is. That said, generally speaking you would go about it by taking what we know about how cells work, and what we know about how non-ionizing radiation works, and putting together a hypothesis about how damage could occur. Fundamentally, i think my issue with most of the anti-5g stuff is that the arguments tend not to apply to just 5g - they tend to be vauge enough that they would apply to almost anything. To be convinced, i would want an argument that applies to 5g but also objectively does not apply to say older cell phones or a space heater (unless the person was explicitly arguing that those other things are also unsafe).

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
That was not my question. My question was "if there is possibility of harm (that 5G can be harmful), how would you find it, identify what it is?"
- bawolff 6y ago
  That's a weird question. My position is that there is no such harm, and thus it is impossible to find it, since it doesn't exist. If someone asked you the question: "if there is a possibility of harm from oak trees, how would you find it?" How would you answer that question? Is there any reasonable answer to such a question? Or for the sake of argument, how would you answer the question "If 1+1 = 3 how would you prove that"? I just don't see any reasonable answer to the question "assume a position you don't believe has any evidence for it, now provide the evidence for the position you dont believe in". If i was able to provide the evidence or even concieve of some way to obtain it, i wouldn't hold the view that the position is indefensible. That's not to say its impossible in general. If you asked, "if arsenic has any harm, how would you find out" i could easily answer with, eat a bunch and see what happens. But i can't generally create evidence for something just because i assume the proposition is true in a thought experiment, and i firmly believe that the onus is on the proponent of a position to provide the supporting evidence and theories.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    That kind of writing has the assumption that science is a closed book and that we already know everything, but we don't, and we are not even close to knowing. Materiel sciences, medicine, physics... are far from 1+1=2. Scientists are trying to ask questions and try to find answers, that is all. Not knowing what question to ask does not mean that there isn't an issue with something, it tells something else about us. > thus it is impossible to find it Entrenching our selves in beliefs just makes us dogmatic, and dogmatic people do not ask questions, they do not doubt in anything, they "know". Same in times of Spanish Inquisition and same today. Just different subjects. The same attitudes have people who believe that Earth is flat. No evidence can help there. As for every evidence - they will come up with something more delusional to confirm their own belief that Earth is flat. If you say let me take you to this rocket, so you can see the Earth, they would say "you projected picture on my helmet it is not real". Same goes with harmful things if you like meat you will believe that eating animals is good for them, that they do not suffer, do not have feelings etc. When we develop applications, we do not say, hey this application is impenetrable, it is the safest application in the world ever, it does not need testing, just ship it (I do not know what is your line of work). But we constantly ask how can we destroy what we just built. Be sure, if you do not do it some hacker out there will do it for you, and it will hurt significantly more. Yes, it is true these analogies are not the same; nature is infinitely more complex, and our knowledge even smaller. Issue is picking side. Scientist does not picks sides, s/he seeks questions and answers. I am not saying in any way that "5G is deadly run for your lives"; but I do say, as I said from the beginning of this thread, we do not know, and we need to do long term and short term exposure studies, so we can get more data. As without data you're just another person with an opinion. What to search? Many things, for every kind of molecule, compound, cell, tissue or body functionality, we should do a study. If that is too much, for a starter if we know that 5G penetrate skin for instance, than do all bits about the skin. Even if we do not find anything, we will probably learn something in the process... When I asked you the question, I was hopping you will follow scientific method, and say: explore, think, ask questions, find answers, do the research... In the end, something just 3 years ago. https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-effect-electromagnetism-years.... I wish you all the best.