3 ms·

"Since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found har

by papito 5y ago

"Since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating." And... "The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility)." What I see is the "small government" striking again. These federal agencies that are there to protect the public from irresponsible capitalism (e.g. Boeing) have been gutted to the point where they are effectively subsidiaries of the businesses. Lord forbid they affect shareholder value.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
education > regulation. We don't even know if 5g is dangerous! We're going on data from the 80's? They could protect the public by doing research and actually finding out what's going on. Isn't the fed the number one in research grant amounts? Can't it award something to look into this?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > education > regulation Not really. There's always going to be a significant fraction of the public that will be irresponsible, either through ignorance, intransigence, or greed. And then there's the fact that the amount personal education and effort required to substitute for regulation in the modern world is so high to be entirely impractical (sure you could reasonably take up one or two areas, but not all areas).
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    Yes agreed. However, a free society is not about mandating people to be safe, it's about providing the information and allowing them to make their own decisions. Smoking is the perfect example of this and a great example of how the government should act. Don't regulate but educate people on the harms and allow them to make their own decisions. Marijuana is the perfect example of how the federal gov't got 'mandates' wrong, and only by breaking the law have people changed it.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > However, a free society is not about mandating people to be safe, it's about providing the information and allowing them to make their own decisions. I don't think it's that simple, and I think presenting things as a binary like this leads false choices. I think the right way to think about it is more along the lines of optimizing the choices so people can make good ones with a reasonable amount of total effort. And there we're really only talking about decisions whose impact is limited to the individual making them. When there are externalities involved that's a different thing. > Don't regulate but educate people on the harms and allow them to make their own decisions. While that sounds reasonable in the abstract, I don't think it meets my criteria above, because the amount of education required quickly becomes far more than any individual can reasonably juggle with other responsibilities, and then there's the question of how much time most people actually want to spend on stuff like that.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      No. What you are describing (not mandating, just providing information) is known as "libertarian anarchy". A "free society" still places constraints on people in the form of public health policy, if and when the risk of not doing it greatly exceeds the risk of doing it. I do agree that marijuana represents a situation where the government failed to make a legitimate public health case, and now has to undo decades of policy.
- papito 5y ago
  I don't really see how this applies. First of all, the whole point is that the agency is NOT doing it, because it does not have the public's interest in mind. Secondly, how would education help here? Am I supposed to walk around with a detailed map of 5G towers, spaced every 200 meters? Or what if Boeing decides to make a vital redundant piece of equipment optional - a thing that actually happened - killing hundreds of people. The regulation was flawed. How does education help?

by papito 5y ago

edmcnulty101 5y ago

education > regulation. We don't even know if 5g is dangerous! We're going on data from the 80's? They could protect the public by doing research and actually finding out what's going on. Isn't the fed the number one in research grant amounts? Can't it award something to look into this?

tablespoon 5y ago
> education > regulation Not really. There's always going to be a significant fraction of the public that will be irresponsible, either through ignorance, intransigence, or greed. And then there's the fact that the amount personal education and effort required to substitute for regulation in the modern world is so high to be entirely impractical (sure you could reasonably take up one or two areas, but not all areas).
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Yes agreed. However, a free society is not about mandating people to be safe, it's about providing the information and allowing them to make their own decisions. Smoking is the perfect example of this and a great example of how the government should act. Don't regulate but educate people on the harms and allow them to make their own decisions. Marijuana is the perfect example of how the federal gov't got 'mandates' wrong, and only by breaking the law have people changed it.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > However, a free society is not about mandating people to be safe, it's about providing the information and allowing them to make their own decisions. I don't think it's that simple, and I think presenting things as a binary like this leads false choices. I think the right way to think about it is more along the lines of optimizing the choices so people can make good ones with a reasonable amount of total effort. And there we're really only talking about decisions whose impact is limited to the individual making them. When there are externalities involved that's a different thing. > Don't regulate but educate people on the harms and allow them to make their own decisions. While that sounds reasonable in the abstract, I don't think it meets my criteria above, because the amount of education required quickly becomes far more than any individual can reasonably juggle with other responsibilities, and then there's the question of how much time most people actually want to spend on stuff like that.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    No. What you are describing (not mandating, just providing information) is known as "libertarian anarchy". A "free society" still places constraints on people in the form of public health policy, if and when the risk of not doing it greatly exceeds the risk of doing it. I do agree that marijuana represents a situation where the government failed to make a legitimate public health case, and now has to undo decades of policy.
papito 5y ago
I don't really see how this applies. First of all, the whole point is that the agency is NOT doing it, because it does not have the public's interest in mind. Secondly, how would education help here? Am I supposed to walk around with a detailed map of 5G towers, spaced every 200 meters? Or what if Boeing decides to make a vital redundant piece of equipment optional - a thing that actually happened - killing hundreds of people. The regulation was flawed. How does education help?