6 ms·

"Some critics also reportedly expressed concerns about radiation emitted by thousands of small antennas." When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going

"Some critics also reportedly expressed concerns about radiation emitted by thousands of small antennas." When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science.

JoshMnem 9y ago
More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102
brk 9y ago
I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that the public perpetually feels like major corporations do things that prioritize profits over general consumer best interests. This leads to a knee-jerk opposition to anything not fully understood.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- lovich 9y ago
  I agree with what you said, but I want to point out that feel shouldn't be the word used here. Feel is used for something that's unproven, a gut instinct or emotion. In terms of major corporations prioritizing profits over consumer best interests it's not a feeling anymore. The multitude of documented cases of corporations explicitly deciding to prioritize profits over everything has gone on long enough that at this point a company would have to prove exactly what profits they were leaving on the table before anyone should resonably believe they are acting in the interest of consumers. Its going to cause more and more situations like this fear of antennas and radiation, or vaccinnes causing autism, or any other crazy sort of idea because there is no trust anymore and the public has to assume they are going to get fucked if they aren't cautious
timthelion 9y ago
What lack of understanding is there though? We already know that doctors are unable to preform reproducible science, so we cannot trust them to prove that cell-phones are safe. Physics tells us that cell-phone radiation enters the body and interacts with cells. Of course, the panic that often accompanies such uncertainty is irrational and unscientific, but the steadfast belief that the radiation can do no harm is equally so. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  There is some science we aren't still worried about reproducing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law The focus on micro towers is misguided because the possible health threat is from the handset, and more micro towers means phones can operate at lower power, which would be a good thing for the worriers.
  - timthelion 9y ago
    Doen't the inverse square law show that more towers closer to the ground, even transmitting at a lower wattage, could be worse than a few towers high up and far away?
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      Just think about your handset, not the towers. The handset has to broadcast to those towers, at a power they can receive. As you hold that handset, to you want it to be broadcasting at low power to a nearby tower, or higher power to a tower further away? And who says that old tower is further away? It is going to be close to someone, even if it isn't you.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  You don’t understand how “Science” works. If there is no proof something causes harm, then it is safe. If there is no proof something is safe, and you point this out, then it is YOU who is insane. Oh oops, did I say “Science”? I should have said “Propaganda”.
  - dang 9y ago
    This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. We ban accounts that do this, so would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on?
- 9y ago
tzs 9y ago
> When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science. Who is there that is telling the public what the science says and that the public can trust? Government agencies and their scientists? They often have a tendency to make recommendations based on weak science, and if they are regulating an industry with a lot of political influence they may even make recommendations that go against what the science says. For an example take a look at dietary recommendations in the US. Almost everything that has gone into them has not held up. The public followed them, reduced fats, eggs, and protein, and loaded up on carbs...and became fat and diabetic. How about non-government advocacy groups? They botch it too. Continuing with the dietary recommendations example, the American Heart Association, for example, jumped on the unscientific "fat and cholesterol bad" bandwagon, and spent decades giving people harmful advice. Industry scientists? Their employers often get to decide what they publish, which means that although the industry scientists might not outright lie about results, they may remain silent about results that would go against their employer's interests. Academic scientists? This is probably your best bet. The problem here is that academic research is often not directly on point for the particular issue that regulators or legislators are addressing. Academic researchers are more likely to be doing the basic research that industry, government, and NGO researchers should be building upon.
- adreamingsoul 9y ago
  So, what is your process to disprove wrong assumptions that you or someone else has?
  - labster 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- kobeya 9y ago
  Why should people trust someone else instead of using their own brain to evaluate arguments?
  - 9y ago
empath75 9y ago
You and I understand enough about electromagnetism and biology to understand that those concerns are probably unfounded. Other people don’t have the time or the inclination or intelligence to learn and so they have to rely on the word of authorities. And to be honest, people have been lied to repeatedly by authorities and have died or become sick because of it. It might be the case that being cautious in rolling out new technologies is a prudent political decision, even if it’s not necessarily sound scientifically.
- kurthr 9y ago
  I agree, and if a 5G base stations is really required on every corner... then screw it! You can't get decent coverage of more than one carrier over significant fractions of the country. I sounds like 5G is more likely to emerge as a super WiFi than as a cell phone standard in the US. Transitioning to greater use of MIMO within the 4G standard would significantly increase bandwidth without requiring more stations. And it might just save us money... we need more 4G with good coverage than ultra-high bandwidth local service. We might get it and better WiFi, if the FCC doesn't sell off all the spectrum to our non-competitive tri-opoly. In China they've already committed build it so they will come, anyway. The one new thing 5G actually helps with is low latency (less than 10ms rather than less than 100ms) ... which is mostly useful for dumb terminals, twitch games, and perhaps VR.

JoshMnem 9y ago

More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102

brk 9y ago

I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that the public perpetually feels like major corporations do things that prioritize profits over general consumer best interests. This leads to a knee-jerk opposition to anything not fully understood.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lovich 9y ago
I agree with what you said, but I want to point out that feel shouldn't be the word used here. Feel is used for something that's unproven, a gut instinct or emotion. In terms of major corporations prioritizing profits over consumer best interests it's not a feeling anymore. The multitude of documented cases of corporations explicitly deciding to prioritize profits over everything has gone on long enough that at this point a company would have to prove exactly what profits they were leaving on the table before anyone should resonably believe they are acting in the interest of consumers. Its going to cause more and more situations like this fear of antennas and radiation, or vaccinnes causing autism, or any other crazy sort of idea because there is no trust anymore and the public has to assume they are going to get fucked if they aren't cautious

timthelion 9y ago

What lack of understanding is there though? We already know that doctors are unable to preform reproducible science, so we cannot trust them to prove that cell-phones are safe. Physics tells us that cell-phone radiation enters the body and interacts with cells. Of course, the panic that often accompanies such uncertainty is irrational and unscientific, but the steadfast belief that the radiation can do no harm is equally so. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/

WillPostForFood 9y ago
There is some science we aren't still worried about reproducing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law The focus on micro towers is misguided because the possible health threat is from the handset, and more micro towers means phones can operate at lower power, which would be a good thing for the worriers.
- timthelion 9y ago
  Doen't the inverse square law show that more towers closer to the ground, even transmitting at a lower wattage, could be worse than a few towers high up and far away?
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    Just think about your handset, not the towers. The handset has to broadcast to those towers, at a power they can receive. As you hold that handset, to you want it to be broadcasting at low power to a nearby tower, or higher power to a tower further away? And who says that old tower is further away? It is going to be close to someone, even if it isn't you.
CodeWriter23 9y ago
You don’t understand how “Science” works. If there is no proof something causes harm, then it is safe. If there is no proof something is safe, and you point this out, then it is YOU who is insane. Oh oops, did I say “Science”? I should have said “Propaganda”.
- dang 9y ago
  This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. We ban accounts that do this, so would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on?
9y ago

tzs 9y ago

> When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science. Who is there that is telling the public what the science says and that the public can trust? Government agencies and their scientists? They often have a tendency to make recommendations based on weak science, and if they are regulating an industry with a lot of political influence they may even make recommendations that go against what the science says. For an example take a look at dietary recommendations in the US. Almost everything that has gone into them has not held up. The public followed them, reduced fats, eggs, and protein, and loaded up on carbs...and became fat and diabetic. How about non-government advocacy groups? They botch it too. Continuing with the dietary recommendations example, the American Heart Association, for example, jumped on the unscientific "fat and cholesterol bad" bandwagon, and spent decades giving people harmful advice. Industry scientists? Their employers often get to decide what they publish, which means that although the industry scientists might not outright lie about results, they may remain silent about results that would go against their employer's interests. Academic scientists? This is probably your best bet. The problem here is that academic research is often not directly on point for the particular issue that regulators or legislators are addressing. Academic researchers are more likely to be doing the basic research that industry, government, and NGO researchers should be building upon.

adreamingsoul 9y ago
So, what is your process to disprove wrong assumptions that you or someone else has?
- labster 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
kobeya 9y ago
Why should people trust someone else instead of using their own brain to evaluate arguments?
- 9y ago

empath75 9y ago

You and I understand enough about electromagnetism and biology to understand that those concerns are probably unfounded. Other people don’t have the time or the inclination or intelligence to learn and so they have to rely on the word of authorities. And to be honest, people have been lied to repeatedly by authorities and have died or become sick because of it. It might be the case that being cautious in rolling out new technologies is a prudent political decision, even if it’s not necessarily sound scientifically.

kurthr 9y ago
I agree, and if a 5G base stations is really required on every corner... then screw it! You can't get decent coverage of more than one carrier over significant fractions of the country. I sounds like 5G is more likely to emerge as a super WiFi than as a cell phone standard in the US. Transitioning to greater use of MIMO within the 4G standard would significantly increase bandwidth without requiring more stations. And it might just save us money... we need more 4G with good coverage than ultra-high bandwidth local service. We might get it and better WiFi, if the FCC doesn't sell off all the spectrum to our non-competitive tri-opoly. In China they've already committed build it so they will come, anyway. The one new thing 5G actually helps with is low latency (less than 10ms rather than less than 100ms) ... which is mostly useful for dumb terminals, twitch games, and perhaps VR.