6 ms·

> 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, becaus

> 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. Ok, well if this is the stance that this article is taking, its a +1 to the notion that Scientific American has gone the way of the History Channel, pure trash.

Miner49er 5y ago
I'm curious what is wrong with this statement? Is it false or something?
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  > we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G This is false. > Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology Also false.
  - qnsi 5y ago
    would be good if you could at least point/explain how this is false. Other than that we can choose: should we trust newspaper or a anonymous HN user
    - dekhn 5y ago
      In short, there are a number of low quality studies (blared endlessly by newspapers that have no idea how to evaluate the studies) about how cell phone radiation is dangerous, but none of those studies has withstood extensive attacks by skeptics. There simply isn't any high quality study showing some measurable damage from cellphone radiation that has a detectable impact on human health. In the meantime, absent any realistic mechanism or data showing it's dangerous, the default position is "not dangerous". You should absolutely not trust "newspaper articles" (and in this case, Scientific American is a popular science magazine) about science. Even the best newspapers routinely mislead (intentionally or otherwise) in their science reporting.
    - syki 5y ago
      It think it is good that evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. It illustrates how easy it is to dupe people. Since the first unsubstantiated assertions were made in a magazine it now falls to those who claim it is wrong to do the work to prove it is wrong. The one first making the unsubstantiated assertion is at an advantage in that naysayers are now put in the position of proving they are right. This happens quite a but with news reporting. This is particularly true with political reporting. It’s much harder to combat the initial messaging than it is to make unsubstantiated charges. Those unsubstantiated assertions should not have been permitted in the article.
      - pessimizer 5y ago
        > evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. I missed this, and I am absolutely receptive to it.
        syki 5y ago
        Meant to write “that evidence was not provided…”
  - qorrect 5y ago
    >> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G >This is false. "They have considerable evidence", that's what you are saying is false ? The evidence could say it has no harmful effects - I think you assumed the evidence was damning - but that sentence does not say that.
nickysielicki 5y ago
Before I took an interest in amateur radio I always thought that there was zero evidence of non-ionizing radiation being dangerous. Like you. I thought it was established science that it was safe. Then I came across some recent papers and came to learn that NIR is definitely associated with the disruption of cells, and it’s not because of localized heating. Go do a Google Scholar search for “non-ionizing radiation dangerous cell phones” and you’ll find a bunch of results from 15 years ago that say it’s perfectly safe, and another bunch of articles from the past 5 years saying the opposite. It’s not quite the same risk as chain smoking cigarettes, but it’s definitely there. Edit: link, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749116309526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...
- Aloha 5y ago
  It's field strength that's the key here - and the field strength from a cell phone is basically impossibly low.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Yes, it's correct non-ionzing radation has detectable effects on cells, some of which are deleterious. It's still not quite enough (given the lack of strong epidemiological evidence) to make any arguments for or against 5G.
  - nickysielicki 5y ago
    > It's still not quite enough (given the lack of strong epidemiological evidence) to make any arguments for or against 5G. Definitely not. But to me it’s enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the author and keep reading, even when they carelessly overstate the risk.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      The author publishes roughly the same article in several venues on an annual basis, but interestingly, there is absolutely zero high quality epidemiological evidence supporting his position. Even at Berkeley he's a bit of an outsider with this position.
tablespoon 5y ago
>> 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. What would be the difference between 2G/3G and 4G from a health perspective? Does 4g transmit on different frequencies or at a higher power level or something? My assumption was that they were pretty similar from a "radio" perspective, and the differences were mostly in the protocol.
- hammyhavoc 5y ago
  Enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies I know 5G uses different frequencies. I was asking about 2G-4G.

Miner49er 5y ago

I'm curious what is wrong with this statement? Is it false or something?

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G This is false. > Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology Also false.
- qnsi 5y ago
  would be good if you could at least point/explain how this is false. Other than that we can choose: should we trust newspaper or a anonymous HN user
  - dekhn 5y ago
    In short, there are a number of low quality studies (blared endlessly by newspapers that have no idea how to evaluate the studies) about how cell phone radiation is dangerous, but none of those studies has withstood extensive attacks by skeptics. There simply isn't any high quality study showing some measurable damage from cellphone radiation that has a detectable impact on human health. In the meantime, absent any realistic mechanism or data showing it's dangerous, the default position is "not dangerous". You should absolutely not trust "newspaper articles" (and in this case, Scientific American is a popular science magazine) about science. Even the best newspapers routinely mislead (intentionally or otherwise) in their science reporting.
  - syki 5y ago
    It think it is good that evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. It illustrates how easy it is to dupe people. Since the first unsubstantiated assertions were made in a magazine it now falls to those who claim it is wrong to do the work to prove it is wrong. The one first making the unsubstantiated assertion is at an advantage in that naysayers are now put in the position of proving they are right. This happens quite a but with news reporting. This is particularly true with political reporting. It’s much harder to combat the initial messaging than it is to make unsubstantiated charges. Those unsubstantiated assertions should not have been permitted in the article.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      > evidence was provided that the article is wrong on these points. I missed this, and I am absolutely receptive to it.
      - syki 5y ago
        Meant to write “that evidence was not provided…”
- qorrect 5y ago
  >> we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G >This is false. "They have considerable evidence", that's what you are saying is false ? The evidence could say it has no harmful effects - I think you assumed the evidence was damning - but that sentence does not say that.

nickysielicki 5y ago

Before I took an interest in amateur radio I always thought that there was zero evidence of non-ionizing radiation being dangerous. Like you. I thought it was established science that it was safe. Then I came across some recent papers and came to learn that NIR is definitely associated with the disruption of cells, and it’s not because of localized heating. Go do a Google Scholar search for “non-ionizing radiation dangerous cell phones” and you’ll find a bunch of results from 15 years ago that say it’s perfectly safe, and another bunch of articles from the past 5 years saying the opposite. It’s not quite the same risk as chain smoking cigarettes, but it’s definitely there. Edit: link, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749116309526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...

Aloha 5y ago
It's field strength that's the key here - and the field strength from a cell phone is basically impossibly low.
dekhn 5y ago
Yes, it's correct non-ionzing radation has detectable effects on cells, some of which are deleterious. It's still not quite enough (given the lack of strong epidemiological evidence) to make any arguments for or against 5G.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  > It's still not quite enough (given the lack of strong epidemiological evidence) to make any arguments for or against 5G. Definitely not. But to me it’s enough to give the benefit of the doubt to the author and keep reading, even when they carelessly overstate the risk.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    The author publishes roughly the same article in several venues on an annual basis, but interestingly, there is absolutely zero high quality epidemiological evidence supporting his position. Even at Berkeley he's a bit of an outsider with this position.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> 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. What would be the difference between 2G/3G and 4G from a health perspective? Does 4g transmit on different frequencies or at a higher power level or something? My assumption was that they were pretty similar from a "radio" perspective, and the differences were mostly in the protocol.

hammyhavoc 5y ago
Enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies I know 5G uses different frequencies. I was asking about 2G-4G.