5 ms·

The "Why Not?" section here starts with a disclaimer that the author is personally affected but doesn't actually say how. The points raised boil down to "I have

by jmyeet 5y ago

The "Why Not?" section here starts with a disclaimer that the author is personally affected but doesn't actually say how. The points raised boil down to "I have enough speed so I don't see the point". Ok, but that's not a reason why not. Remember bandwidth isn't just about how much an individual can get but how many people can be serviced within a given area either in total or without subdividing into cells, which then require somewhere to put another tower. The author didn't raise this but I've seen others who have brought up the nebulous "radiation" argument against 5G. Here's a good litmus test: if someone can't tell you, at a minimum, what "ionizing radiation" is then you can safely ignore everything they say about "radiation". Here's another: if they can't describe the "radiation" in terms of the radiation exposure from eating a banana, you can also safely ignore them.

ericd 5y ago
Microwaves aren’t ionizing radiation, but you still probably don’t want too many watts to the brain. That said, I have no opinion on 5G safety, I don’t know enough to have one. Do you know what the wattage of a microcell that might sit on a suburban power pole might be?
- BenjiWiebe 5y ago
  And don't forget the inverse square law. You will be irradiated much more by a cell phone pressed against your skin than a microcell on top of a pole, just because the distance is many orders of magnitude more.
tejohnso 5y ago
While you're ignoring everything they say about radiation, you can also suggest they watch "All you need to know to understand 5G" by Sabine Hossenfelder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBsP-bmDLOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBsP-bmDLOo
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alduin32 5y ago
> The author didn't raise this but I've seen others who have brought up the nebulous "radiation" argument against 5G. Here's a good litmus test: if someone can't tell you, at a minimum, what "ionizing radiation" is then you can safely ignore everything they say about "radiation". I often use that test myself, or some variation thereof, However, it doesn't always work. We often regurgitate knowledge from people that couldn't recite precise definitions. As a matter of fact, I think most of the people around me, as well as myself and, I think, a good part of commenters here, wouldn't be able to properly describe ionizing radiation, but yet wouldn't refrain from commenting on related matters. On top of that, I met quite educated and convincing persons bring up (non-ionizing) radiation arguments about 5G, that wouldn't have any problem telling you what ionizing radiation is. I've got two friends that I know are more-or-less 5G skeptics, and heard them sharing how frustrated they are that they cannot even give their opinions on these subjects without being ridiculed, so much that they even lie when asked about it, depending on who's aking them, and then watch others spread vaguely similar conspiracy theories. That was quite terrifying to me (at the time). > Here's another: if they can't describe the "radiation" in terms of the radiation exposure from eating a banana, you can also safely ignore them. As far as I know, most people that are (seriously) bringing up radiation arguments about 5G are worried of non-ionizing radiation.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > I've got two friends that I know are more-or-less 5G skeptics, and heard them sharing how frustrated they are that they cannot even give their opinions on these subjects without being ridiculed There's not really much to be skeptical about with respect to the radio aspect. You're illuminated by far more watts of radiation from non-5G sources than you are 5G sources, more so if you're outdoors. Not only is the 5G radiation non-ionizing but it doesn't penetrate for shit through water (a major component of humans). Unless you put your face against a tower's antenna there's nothing about a 5G radio worth worrying about. As for the network part, it's a high bandwidth but low latency connection rivaling wired internet but wireless. It's no less useful than high speed wired Internet. For some applications, mobile but bandwidth or latency sensitive, it's infinitely better than wired.
jiggawatts 5y ago
The arguments that I like to use are: - The Sun puts out vastly, and I mean vastly more radiation by every metric, much of which is the ionising, cancer-causing type. The same people frothing at the mouth about 5G will spend hours suntanning. - Mobile phones are deadly, and cause a surprising number of hospitalisations annually... from car crashes due to texting-and-driving. If you care about mobile phone safety and your health, why aren't you focused on that? - If you can't feel it burning you, then it's not putting out enough thermal power to burn you... by definition. Analogies with microwave ovens are irrelevant when the oven would give you a severe and immediately painful burn if you put your hand in there. - The main difference between 4G and 5G is the protocol, not the type of radiation. People think 5G is some unique thing like "X-Rays but different" or something. It's literally a radio. A radio! People live near radio towers putting out hundreds of kilowatts and are fine. - A key benefit of more efficient protocols is that they need lower power to send the same data. So any argument for going back to 3G or 4G to avoid 5G is an argument saying that more radio power is... better somehow?

by jmyeet 5y ago

ericd 5y ago

Microwaves aren’t ionizing radiation, but you still probably don’t want too many watts to the brain. That said, I have no opinion on 5G safety, I don’t know enough to have one. Do you know what the wattage of a microcell that might sit on a suburban power pole might be?

BenjiWiebe 5y ago
And don't forget the inverse square law. You will be irradiated much more by a cell phone pressed against your skin than a microcell on top of a pole, just because the distance is many orders of magnitude more.

tejohnso 5y ago

While you're ignoring everything they say about radiation, you can also suggest they watch "All you need to know to understand 5G" by Sabine Hossenfelder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBsP-bmDLOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBsP-bmDLOo

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alduin32 5y ago

> The author didn't raise this but I've seen others who have brought up the nebulous "radiation" argument against 5G. Here's a good litmus test: if someone can't tell you, at a minimum, what "ionizing radiation" is then you can safely ignore everything they say about "radiation". I often use that test myself, or some variation thereof, However, it doesn't always work. We often regurgitate knowledge from people that couldn't recite precise definitions. As a matter of fact, I think most of the people around me, as well as myself and, I think, a good part of commenters here, wouldn't be able to properly describe ionizing radiation, but yet wouldn't refrain from commenting on related matters. On top of that, I met quite educated and convincing persons bring up (non-ionizing) radiation arguments about 5G, that wouldn't have any problem telling you what ionizing radiation is. I've got two friends that I know are more-or-less 5G skeptics, and heard them sharing how frustrated they are that they cannot even give their opinions on these subjects without being ridiculed, so much that they even lie when asked about it, depending on who's aking them, and then watch others spread vaguely similar conspiracy theories. That was quite terrifying to me (at the time). > Here's another: if they can't describe the "radiation" in terms of the radiation exposure from eating a banana, you can also safely ignore them. As far as I know, most people that are (seriously) bringing up radiation arguments about 5G are worried of non-ionizing radiation.

giantrobot 5y ago
> I've got two friends that I know are more-or-less 5G skeptics, and heard them sharing how frustrated they are that they cannot even give their opinions on these subjects without being ridiculed There's not really much to be skeptical about with respect to the radio aspect. You're illuminated by far more watts of radiation from non-5G sources than you are 5G sources, more so if you're outdoors. Not only is the 5G radiation non-ionizing but it doesn't penetrate for shit through water (a major component of humans). Unless you put your face against a tower's antenna there's nothing about a 5G radio worth worrying about. As for the network part, it's a high bandwidth but low latency connection rivaling wired internet but wireless. It's no less useful than high speed wired Internet. For some applications, mobile but bandwidth or latency sensitive, it's infinitely better than wired.

jiggawatts 5y ago

The arguments that I like to use are: - The Sun puts out vastly, and I mean vastly more radiation by every metric, much of which is the ionising, cancer-causing type. The same people frothing at the mouth about 5G will spend hours suntanning. - Mobile phones are deadly, and cause a surprising number of hospitalisations annually... from car crashes due to texting-and-driving. If you care about mobile phone safety and your health, why aren't you focused on that? - If you can't feel it burning you, then it's not putting out enough thermal power to burn you... by definition. Analogies with microwave ovens are irrelevant when the oven would give you a severe and immediately painful burn if you put your hand in there. - The main difference between 4G and 5G is the protocol, not the type of radiation. People think 5G is some unique thing like "X-Rays but different" or something. It's literally a radio. A radio! People live near radio towers putting out hundreds of kilowatts and are fine. - A key benefit of more efficient protocols is that they need lower power to send the same data. So any argument for going back to 3G or 4G to avoid 5G is an argument saying that more radio power is... better somehow?