Since Troy commands a lot of attention, he would do well to reference the legitimate controversy over adjacent-channel interference among some 5G bands and weather radar. The weather radar is sampling a physical phenomenon and cannot be 'moved' to another band.
I haven't seen the 5G hoax promotions, only the legitimate journalism articles describing the fallout. I presume that none of the hoaxers actually reference the weather radar issue? Let's hope it stays that way because it's much harder to dismiss it all as a hoax if they mix in real truth with all the other bogus stuff.
> I presume that none of the hoaxers actually reference the weather radar issue?
I have never seen them do this, and I think it's unlikely they will do enough research on 5G (despite telling everyone else to "do the research") to learn about this.
> Let's hope it stays that way because it's much harder to dismiss it all as a hoax if they mix in real truth with all the other bogus stuff.
I'd say they already do this, but I'm not sure they do, and I'm not sure they need to. Conspiracy theorists don't rely on facts to bolster their narrative; they rely on things that sound like facts.
The defining characteristic of a successful conspiracy theory seems to be that it's "exactly wrong"; if there are real downsides to a thing, they aren't mentioned, and fictional ones bandied about instead.
Or US government conspiracies: the more well-documented something is, the less it's talked about. Nobody bothers with Iran-Contra conspiracy theories, or even to talk about it any more : there was genuinely a criminal conspiracy, those responsible for that particular bit of treason were indicted, pardoned, and allowed to return to normal politics.
I've not seen anything hoax-y that even mentions weather radar. It all seems to be centred around misunderstandings of field strengths, inverse square laws etc and the usual overreaction to anything poorly understood and new.
If they mix up weather radar in there I can only imagine the theories about government mind control that will come next.
Honestly, I think it is an overblown problem. (IIRC, the band in question was something like 22GHz)
Those high frequency bands are going to be reserved for high population areas. Their entire purpose is to avoid crosstalk by using signals with low penetration. So, the expectation is that those higher frequencies be used for things like low power micro cell towers in buildings, or downtown city streets.
That means the actual disruption, if it occurs, will only be over the high population areas of cities. Not generally wherever coverage occurs.
As a side note: My biggest disappointment regarding the 5G discussion with respect to potential health implications is the widespread lack of acknowledgement about the fact that we have not yet conducted any meaningful scientific experiments (let alone ones whose methodology is robust) to even hold a meaningful debate.
It's derailed into a political debate between those who "know for a fact" there are zero health implications and those who "know for a fact" that you'll certainly die within a week from a 5g antenna being placed next to your apartment.
If the energy isn't enough to ionize, then what is there to study?
(Extreme) heating effects can cause cancer, but the source of heat is irrelevant. The power levels 5G uses make even this point completely moot.
If you really have to search for something that could cause you cancer, perhaps those rather carcinogenic compounds your phone is made out of could be studied instead? Although I prefer just not to pulverize my phone and breath in the resulting dust. :-)
There has been a fabled danger of low levels of non-ionizing radiation without an explained mechanism for decades. There is no data to support it, but there will never be enough “studies” to disprove it.
> If the energy isn't enough to ionize, then what is there to study?
DNA is conductive, and there are researchers who believe that this might be an important component in how the cell detects and repairs damage to its DNA [1].
There have been a couple of papers that claim that DNA can act as a fractal antenna allowing it to react to wavelengths that you would at first expect to be way too large to affect it. Here's one [2], which claims it interacts over a wide range of frequencies with a resonance at 34 GHz.
If DNA charge transport does turn out to play an important role in how the cell identifies damaged DNA, and if it turns out that those fractal antenna claims are true, then we'd have a potential mechanism for non-ionizing, non-heating radiation to increase cancer rates.
Note that it would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from finding and repairing damage that if left unrepaired will lead to cancer.
The first part of the above, that DNA is conductive, is firmly established. How the cell detects damaged DNA is not known. That charge transport plays a role in that is currently just one theory that researchers are studying, but it is a theory that if it turns out to be true will not surprise anyone.
I haven't been able to find much on fractal antennas, especially very small ones, so can't tell if the claims about DNA acting as an antenna have merit.
Possible health effects of non-ionizing radiation have been studied in all kinds of frequency bands for many decades. So far, no significant effects that go beyond heating have been found, and there is no known mechanism that could cause such effects.
To argue devil's advocate, the scientific literature commenting on this says that existing studies are in too short a timeframe to draw long-term conclusions. I haven't dived into this other than a search on PubMed so it's a question of faith either way.
I've tended to side with the "5G must be safe" crew but to see the other side I checked pubmed and found a fair few reputable-looking studies such as this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31991167
So, yeah, how much do we know for a fact? I say that as a true sceptic (i.e. sceptical with my own views as well as anyone else's). Decades ago we knew for a fact that dumping a ton of plastic into the environment was totally fine. Also we "didn't know for a fact" that greenhouse gas emissions could play a part in affecting our climate for the worse.
Because it is transmitted at the same frequency as previous cell phone technologies. There are literally decades worth of studies around the effects of nonionizing radiation.
The only thing 5G changes is the transmission protocol.
It's fine to be a skeptic, but this is fear mongering. We don't need a 20 year long study to prove something we've known to be safe for 20 years because some crackpots claim it makes them nauseous or causes cancer. If you are going to be skeptical, why aren't you skeptical of the unverified negative claims?
Where's my proof? Google "non-ionizing radiation health". Would find a bunch of articles from reputable sources that all land on the same conclusion. It's safe.
My disappointment is the lack of discussion regarding privacy. It was posted on HN just a few weeks ago how a human can be identified by its gate with high density deployment of antennas.
- Fewer towers necessary because larger coverage areas
- Better penetration of materials
- Doesn’t interfere with weather data collection
Why is there even a push for 5G? What is the benefit to the consumer? A higher bill because a 10x increase in infrastructure is necessary? Asinine. Just use wifi. I don’t understand what 5G was even made to technically accomplish.
The only 5G campaign I can see are the flood of articles over alleged 5G-Corona conspiracies. Those however are not popular even in "dirty" corners on the internet and if so mostly for fun. It's like flat earth.. it's fun to see people embarrass themselves on Twitter when they tout their superior intelligence because they don't fall for that.
There are however concerns about 5G itself, without corona. I haven't really dived into the matter but it passes at least a cursory smell test, see for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22317998
Well, im probably living in really "dirty" corners of internet, as i see constant stream of "Burn all 5G towers because they cause corona" in all "Eco" "spiritual" "nature" facebook groups. Im not saying anything about 5G safety here, just saying that this "5G + corona" conspiracy is really getting traction.
My uncle from Milan, Italy forwarded a "news" article about it after he and his family recovered from the disease. They are angry (due to ignorance) and I'm afraid it is not possible for them to think logically after suffering like that for a month. It's not fun, I wish it were. Fake news are not fake if you don't suspect that they are. Let's do our part as technologically literate people and keep our families sane as much as we can.
Eh not the image with the studies. Again I really don't know much, but I know enough that it's not only about the ionization that "5G is save" people always make it about. Also there was one big pro-5G article here on HN a couple of months ago and that was such a blatant hitjob that ever since I've been weary.
Yes, the most plausible scenario to me seems that these crazy "5G conspiracies" are peddled in the mainstream in order to discredit legitimate and well-founded concerns over 5G.
The same hysteria happened with the first steam powered trains travelling at 12mph in the UK.
Farmers thought their cows milk would turn sour from the train noises and people thought their heads would explode or body damage would happen travelling that fast.
So, last night in NL a number of telephone base stations was destroyed because of this. This seriously impacts the availability of the local emergency number so this hoax is now costing actual lives at a time when the chance of a particular base station being required to call emergency services is quite high.
Sick and tired of these idiots. The people in this thread who are arguing for research into the 'potential health implications' of 5G: you are part of the problem, you are giving cover to the idiots by allowing them to argue that there very well may be such implications so better safe than sorry before we're all going to be mind controlled.
For instance couple of years ago after a surgery I had plenty of time and I watched some conspiracy documentaries (like 9/11 or chemtrails), and I was almost disappointed how quickly they crumbled (within minutes) as they were completely lacking any data or proofs - and I really was curious and open-minded and was looking forward to learn something :)
This issue however becomes much more complicated when discussing environmental and health issues - there usually the technology at hand actually should and needs to prove its safety.
However deranged some of the 5G theories are, it should not hide the fact that - afaik - there is no proper safety study for continues exposure to >24GHz. Even thought theoretically we might think it is safe, it is still paramount to fully safety test it.
So lets stop with all the straw man stuff and do some real studies (or find them if they are already out there).
My strategy is even simpler: if I see a long Facebook post, especially "shared" from a source other than my Facebook friend, I quickly scroll to the bottom and check if it says something like "copy and paste this post". If so I simply ignore it.
Any psychologist here able to explain a bit why some people are prone believing conspiracy theories? I can’t for the life of me figure out why some people, even highly educated, have a tendency to lean towards a mystical or conspiratory explanation for anything just slightly difficult to understand. Is there a part of the brain responsible for this?
Edit: I live in a country where people will find such an explanation for anything ranging from bad weather, to a bad economy, to even covid. And such theories are so prevalent that “normal” people are basically outliers.
Readit News
I haven't seen the 5G hoax promotions, only the legitimate journalism articles describing the fallout. I presume that none of the hoaxers actually reference the weather radar issue? Let's hope it stays that way because it's much harder to dismiss it all as a hoax if they mix in real truth with all the other bogus stuff.
I have never seen them do this, and I think it's unlikely they will do enough research on 5G (despite telling everyone else to "do the research") to learn about this.
> Let's hope it stays that way because it's much harder to dismiss it all as a hoax if they mix in real truth with all the other bogus stuff.
I'd say they already do this, but I'm not sure they do, and I'm not sure they need to. Conspiracy theorists don't rely on facts to bolster their narrative; they rely on things that sound like facts.
Or US government conspiracies: the more well-documented something is, the less it's talked about. Nobody bothers with Iran-Contra conspiracy theories, or even to talk about it any more : there was genuinely a criminal conspiracy, those responsible for that particular bit of treason were indicted, pardoned, and allowed to return to normal politics.
If they mix up weather radar in there I can only imagine the theories about government mind control that will come next.
Those high frequency bands are going to be reserved for high population areas. Their entire purpose is to avoid crosstalk by using signals with low penetration. So, the expectation is that those higher frequencies be used for things like low power micro cell towers in buildings, or downtown city streets.
That means the actual disruption, if it occurs, will only be over the high population areas of cities. Not generally wherever coverage occurs.
Deleted Comment
It's derailed into a political debate between those who "know for a fact" there are zero health implications and those who "know for a fact" that you'll certainly die within a week from a 5g antenna being placed next to your apartment.
(Extreme) heating effects can cause cancer, but the source of heat is irrelevant. The power levels 5G uses make even this point completely moot.
If you really have to search for something that could cause you cancer, perhaps those rather carcinogenic compounds your phone is made out of could be studied instead? Although I prefer just not to pulverize my phone and breath in the resulting dust. :-)
DNA is conductive, and there are researchers who believe that this might be an important component in how the cell detects and repairs damage to its DNA [1].
There have been a couple of papers that claim that DNA can act as a fractal antenna allowing it to react to wavelengths that you would at first expect to be way too large to affect it. Here's one [2], which claims it interacts over a wide range of frequencies with a resonance at 34 GHz.
If DNA charge transport does turn out to play an important role in how the cell identifies damaged DNA, and if it turns out that those fractal antenna claims are true, then we'd have a potential mechanism for non-ionizing, non-heating radiation to increase cancer rates.
Note that it would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from finding and repairing damage that if left unrepaired will lead to cancer.
The first part of the above, that DNA is conductive, is firmly established. How the cell detects damaged DNA is not known. That charge transport plays a role in that is currently just one theory that researchers are studying, but it is a theory that if it turns out to be true will not surprise anyone.
I haven't been able to find much on fractal antennas, especially very small ones, so can't tell if the claims about DNA acting as an antenna have merit.
[1] http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/Research.htm
[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5699-4_...
What are the specific health concerns from what 5G is doing differently to 4G?
Because I remember a couple of petitions from scientists none of whom in the radio field with no specific scientific information or concerns.
So, yeah, how much do we know for a fact? I say that as a true sceptic (i.e. sceptical with my own views as well as anyone else's). Decades ago we knew for a fact that dumping a ton of plastic into the environment was totally fine. Also we "didn't know for a fact" that greenhouse gas emissions could play a part in affecting our climate for the worse.
Because it is transmitted at the same frequency as previous cell phone technologies. There are literally decades worth of studies around the effects of nonionizing radiation.
The only thing 5G changes is the transmission protocol.
It's fine to be a skeptic, but this is fear mongering. We don't need a 20 year long study to prove something we've known to be safe for 20 years because some crackpots claim it makes them nauseous or causes cancer. If you are going to be skeptical, why aren't you skeptical of the unverified negative claims?
Where's my proof? Google "non-ionizing radiation health". Would find a bunch of articles from reputable sources that all land on the same conclusion. It's safe.
Here's the CDC article on it. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizing_radiation.htm...
5G’s benefits over 4G are:
-
4G’s benefits over 5G are:
- Fewer towers necessary because larger coverage areas
- Better penetration of materials
- Doesn’t interfere with weather data collection
Why is there even a push for 5G? What is the benefit to the consumer? A higher bill because a 10x increase in infrastructure is necessary? Asinine. Just use wifi. I don’t understand what 5G was even made to technically accomplish.
There are however concerns about 5G itself, without corona. I haven't really dived into the matter but it passes at least a cursory smell test, see for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22317998
Yeah, totally just for fun.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/06/at-least-...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/04/uk-phone-mas...
Re 5G itself, the link you posted is debunked in the first reply. There are no credible concerns related to 5G
Farmers thought their cows milk would turn sour from the train noises and people thought their heads would explode or body damage would happen travelling that fast.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/67806/early-trains-were-...
https://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/07/11/women-and-child...
Sick and tired of these idiots. The people in this thread who are arguing for research into the 'potential health implications' of 5G: you are part of the problem, you are giving cover to the idiots by allowing them to argue that there very well may be such implications so better safe than sorry before we're all going to be mind controlled.
For instance couple of years ago after a surgery I had plenty of time and I watched some conspiracy documentaries (like 9/11 or chemtrails), and I was almost disappointed how quickly they crumbled (within minutes) as they were completely lacking any data or proofs - and I really was curious and open-minded and was looking forward to learn something :)
This issue however becomes much more complicated when discussing environmental and health issues - there usually the technology at hand actually should and needs to prove its safety.
However deranged some of the 5G theories are, it should not hide the fact that - afaik - there is no proper safety study for continues exposure to >24GHz. Even thought theoretically we might think it is safe, it is still paramount to fully safety test it.
So lets stop with all the straw man stuff and do some real studies (or find them if they are already out there).
Edit: I live in a country where people will find such an explanation for anything ranging from bad weather, to a bad economy, to even covid. And such theories are so prevalent that “normal” people are basically outliers.