Inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of 5G wireless technology

Re:Inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of 5G wireless ... by serf on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @08:19AM (#20458617)

>The gamma rays are also basically radio waves, if we would be using your logic you would say that gamma rays should be considered safe because we know 2G is safe?

parent never said anything of the sort.

Are you confusing the entire electromagnetic spectrum with radiowaves? [0]

No one in this thread has yet made the assertion that all energy is the same, merely that everything within the radio spectrum has similar effects towards humans.

Parent to your comment even drove a comparison between microwave and radio, commenting on the affect of microwave towards people.

>Bottomline is, higher 5G frequencies might be safe or not, and there are different legitimate scientific ways of showing that. But saying that it is safe just because "it's basically radio, like 2G" - is really not one of them.

That's your bottom line, but you also seem to be under the understanding that this energy that hits our skin is at all times absorbed, which isn't the case in physical reality. It's mostly reflected -- the fact that the human body stops it means little with regards to it's effect on said body, or any such accumulation of effect.

As for the rat study -- I am personally going to wait for independent replicatability in human models, or something more similar to humans, before I turn to FUD.

Hell, it'd be nice to even see replicatability of the same experiment across other labs..

[0]: http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/electromag_spectrum.gif

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of 5G wireless ... by Erlich_Bachman on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @09:54AM (#20459486)

> That's your bottom line, but you also seem to be under the understanding that this energy that hits our skin is at all times absorbed, which isn't the case in physical reality. It's mostly reflected -- the fact that the human body stops it means little with regards to it's effect on said body, or any such accumulation of effect.

I certainly hope you are correct in this (in all possible practical situations and applications), and the ultimate things is of course, as you write, to

> wait for independent replicatability in human models, or something more similar to humans, before I turn to FUD.

But why outright disregard any doubt or questions or people that want to understand more before we implement some new somewhat untested technology? Calling them "absurd", "idiot", "frothing at the mouth", "blithely unaware of the last century of human progress", etc. - just doesn't seem helping the progress, and outright counterproductive. It's emotional reaction, a negative and attacking at that. Science has no place for emotions. It shouldn't be ok to be emotional about these things, just because you assume you are right. The other people assume exactly that about their own thoughts, and if you get emotional about it, you're just as counterproductive as the worst ones on the other side of the intellectual divide. It doesn't lead to new progress.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of 5G wireless ... by wasdfff on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @11:48AM (#20460737)

You are absolutely right that we should be cautious, but caution has already been taken by the scientific community. The public is not aware of the work is all, and understandably there is frustration when the only reason to hesistate is because not all the public have informed themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]