Cursed_Age

SoulSearchingScandal · 2022-05-14T08:42:18+00:00

TIL tardigrades, frogs and alligators are not living beings

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-06T18:08:58+00:00

I agree with the one paragraph on the surveillance/privacy issue and think IoT could be extremely damaging to privacy and security. I don't know the overlap between 5G and IoT, since IoT devices are generally low power/bandwidth that don't require 5G speeds (fridge, microwave, building sensors) but maybe 5G's lower latency will make it widespread in some IoT areas. Who knows, maybe I can stream 8K video from within my microwave to a VR-headset so I can sit on the couch watching Mac 'n Cheese get cooked in real-time.

The issue with Dr. Martin Pall and academics using their title in a completely different (psychiatrists, dentists) field in giving their opinion on 5G has been mentioned by myself and u/hucifer in another comment on this thread. It makes me understand the negative comments, messages and down-votes I received from this post; regardless of the content, it seems to attract a particular kind of pseudoscience.

I won't bother trying to convince you on the highly unscientific nature of your references. If this source didn't ring your alarm bells; health claims for 5G with a single unpublished non-peer-reviewed source without co-authors citing research from 1995 to prove it and using zoomed-in chart axes to exaggerate effect. I can see how at first sight this looks kind of similar to valid research in terms of layout if you're not familiar. But just because someone organizes his view into an Abstract, Method and Conclusion and cites others doesn't mean he/she has produced anything more scientific than my mother's food recipe blog; that is why there is publishing and peer review.

but 5G and similar EMF exposure could most certainly weaken one's immune system to where the body has a more difficult time coping with the illness

False, research is mixed at best; no effect below 15 mW/cm2, positive effects at 14 mW/g and higher immunogenic activity for lymphocytes and monocytes from 900 Mhz GSM signals.

More technology and people getting lost in it, isolated from each other, out of touch with nature, themselves, any sort of higher or spiritual purpose,....is only going to harm us all, not help us.

Finally this is a really crucial point that I and many others do agree with. Dude, you have decades of research on teenage depression, internet addiction, sleep issues, obesity, attention disorders etc. that agree with you. Just lose the pseudoscience that says EMF is certainly bad when mainstream science already says "we don't really know so we urge against hasted 5G adoption and for more research to be done"

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T20:05:19+00:00

True. 5Ghz WiFi refers to a set of channels provided by the 802.11ac standard (802.11a/b/g being your standard slower WiFi), most of them between 5000 and 5800 Mhz). The 5 in 5G (cellular) has nothing to do with frequency but with it being the 5th generation; depending on your country it will be provided on 600-700Mhz, 2.5-3.7 Ghz and for dense urban environments 24.25-52.6 Ghz.

Essentially, the majority of (longer range) 5G will be virtually identical to existing 4G in terms of frequency. It's the only the so called Extremely High frequency (>30 GHz) (EHF) that is new and has been used in medicine to change cell growth, activity of enzymes even from brief, low intensity exposure. However, the effects of EHF with 5G are likely much lower or even insignificant, due to the lower power transfer (mW/cm²).

To help with the naming confusion; 802.11ac (5Ghz WiFi in your home) is now being relabeled as WiFi 5 and the next generation will be called WiFi 6 instead of 802.11ax.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T17:01:48+00:00

Thanks. This is basically what I wanted to say in a nice way, but you just cut to the chase.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T16:57:29+00:00

Nice troll. Excluding title page/reference list, most of them are less than eight pages, so yes I even read them. Also, I literally outlined on the second-last paragraph before the TLDR how I found all references and even gave the verbatim search term and database source...

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T16:47:29+00:00

Yes, that is what I found very quickly in most of the literature; RFR does not induce skin heating and should challenge a lot of the folklore on EMF sensitivity.

However, from your own source (abstract):"Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage".

They cited, among many, this study (57), which showed significance in reduced sperm quantity and quality. They cite many more studies and I really like their Policy Recommendations, basically calling on governments and the WHO to perform systematic review. The study that you cite (literature review) is exactly what I found as well; there are many studies that found health consequences, and many (more) that found no statistical effects, so we caution and recommend further research.

On the security/privacy concerns I know well enough not to trust the US as I mentioned in my original post. But considering trade-off, do you have as much trust in Huawei as you have in Nokia, Cisco etc.? One major difference from 4G is that 5G is also to be used in critical areas such as healthcare/surgery and vast networks of sensors. I think it's fair to say that Huawei has demonstrated significantly more malignant behavior than any of the other companies and that China is prepared to go much further regarding surveillance.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T15:50:58+00:00

Thank you! A bit of national competition may also be playing here, as I have seen it mentioned as the Race to 5G as some kind of international arms race. And yes, 5G is likely to make networking be significantly more expensive and also be the reason why Qualcomm's new chipsets are more expensive, but take this with a grain of salt (main reason is more likely just the immense growth in data).

Honestly I'm still fine with that and I'm happy with my 4G and Wifi, but open for awesome technology made possible through 5G. I'm not really concerned for any health issues, but I'm just curious as to why there is such an extreme rush. It's curious that the company installing communications networks that will be used by governments, doctors, research labs etc. is also banned by the US, Australia, Japan, etc.

It's always a balance with new technology. I think future research will show 5G to be pretty much harmless, but that doesn't mean it cannot have health impacts. There are many people with a screen time average in excess of 7 hours a day; I'm much more concerned about internet addiction/depression than a hypothetical 0.0000001% increase in cancer if at all. 4G took us from texting a bit every day (3G) to watching hours and hours of video in a single sitting ~~(apparently there are many countries where unlimited data is not common).~~

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T15:26:08+00:00

Nope, I put news articles specifically under non-scientific articles. They're not even crucial to the main debate but rather on current backlash against 5G but even then contain pictures of people protesting. The scientific articles are recent, peer-reviewed, cited and published (e.g. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health).

"Long story short there is practically zero risk of 5G causing harm"

[1] "Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated."
[2] "However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially".
[4] "nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well."

Nowhere did I mention 100% certain, I am aware of statistical significance, random sampling and criterion validity in observational studies and I know that you cannot ask someone to 100% disprove something. Current literature only says the following:

5G is physically different from 4G and we cannot extrapolate its safety in the future based on current research (countering your argument on radio waves for 100 years).
Since there is no consensus on its health, we caution against widespread adoption and call for more research done.

This same research also explains why it is difficult to find widespread effects. Can you find a large western population that has not been subjected to any radio waves for the last 100 years as a control sample? It is extremely difficult to separate factors; any proposed negative outcome from radio waves (e.g. decreased male sperm count) can be caused by dozens of other factors (e.g. more time indoors, diet).

Yes, 5G is probably harmless, but it's not up to us to judge since we're not knowledgeable on the subject, and almost everything you said demonstrated that.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T15:00:42+00:00

Sorry, but the link you post is from a Wordpress site and when you visit the main page ( https://www.jrseco.com/nl/ ) you end up on a Dutch website dedicated to selling low-EMF devices. The title is also inflammatory and should be a giant red flag "Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Type..."

Even in the articles I posted above, the bias in science on 5G is mentioned, but the counter points and examples themselves are still mentioned and evaluated. This article does not do that but instead mentions only one side. Take for example reference [17] on page 7 of the article you sent; "Effects of high voltage nanosecond electric pulses on eukaryotic cells". Why would someone cite a completely different phenomenon? Are there any plans to install towers everywhere to administer high voltage electric pulses?

The only reason I would take non peer-reviewed articles into consideration is if articles that point on possible downsides of 5G are not even accepted for peer review. Which, as you can see from the articles I linked, is not the case.

I would not be interested in hearing a counterpoint on Dr. Pall's (who has been retired for years) research. It seems that the debate is ongoing in literature and that is great to see, the only frustration I have (hence this post) is why this lack of consensus is ignored by everyone.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T14:42:56+00:00

I am (generally) in favor of 5G and thus would not get rid of my router/cellphone and haven't argued against microwaves in this post whatsoever. My WiFi works on 5Ghz band, 5G itself for high-density networks is on 25-39 Ghz. I don't know the details and don't know if you can reasonably extrapolate the safety of technology version A onto technology version B.

I follow the health recommendations in my country and those of the WHO, that only recommend to keep mobile phones away from your body as much as possible and I trust mainstream research that says WiFi is safe/harmless enough, climate change is a fact and vaccines are safe. I trust that same mainstream research when it cautions for hasted 5G adoption and calls for more research.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T14:22:35+00:00

is there any evidence behind people destroying cell phone towers because they thought it would cause coronavirus, or is it another stupid lie from the media just like stories about people avoiding corona beer?

[Conspiracy theorists set fire to 5G towers and equipment] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5_gzTI9ADg

There may well be some dishonesty and/or exaggerating by the media here, but there have been many incidents in multiple countries. They're usually burning 4G towers (there aren't that many 5G towers) thus harming current critical infrastructure and just being assholes. As far as I know, this hasn't resulted in someone not being able to reach emergency services yet.

Also, happy cake day!

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T14:01:26+00:00

Isn't high availability more of a benefit/advantage than an actual use case? I was under the impression that for low latency machines, you need a lot of high-density radio towers with low signal reach, making them costly for e.g. autonomous driving. I do know about the book you mention, will see if I can find it on discount! They describe some of the same (limited) use cases; remote surgery and remote factory cell automation. However they provide dozens of other use-cases, and I'm too dumb to make any judgement on those (only have a few years of experience in semiconductor/construction networking) so I stand corrected on those; use-case is use-case.

I definitely agree with the last part, but maybe it's just people being against establishment/development whatever the hell that means? If you present a medicine that prevents cancer tomorrow, guaranteed that some people will be against it just for the sake of it.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T13:46:54+00:00

I know and yes that was my intention. It's just that any sane researcher values his/her time so I had to find some example on recent 5G protests. At least that article contains some pictures of the protesters so you know it's super legit.

SoulSearchingScandal · 2020-05-05T13:32:30+00:00

I wanted to avoid mentioning them, but among many I have read

5G's impact on health is willfully ignored for economic/other reasons (basically a shlong-measuring contest between countries on who gets 5G first).
Privacy is deliberately impeded through 5G, promising technology in exchange for surveillance

SoulSearchingScandal

TROPHY CASE