6 ms·

You haven't addressed a single point. Being an expert should help a person to make arguments, and sometimes does, but it's not an argument in and of itself.

pjc50 6y ago
sigh OK, full text: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595 https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-2135... > Critics of 5G agree6–8—but its supporters do not9 10—that the overall population levels of exposure to RF-EMFs will be greatly increased by the 5G roll-out. One compelling argument for that view is the ‘inverse square law’ of EMF exposure: intensity varies as the inverse of the square of the distance from the emitting source.11 With plans afoot internationally to put a 5G booster antenna on ‘every second or third lamp-post’, it is difficult to believe that overall population exposures will not increase substantially Yes, there will be more antennas. Does not address the question of power levels: part of the point of more antennas is that each individual station can have lower power output. No mention of "watts", antenna ERP, or indeed power anywhere in the article. > International health protection agencies and their scientific advisory bodies have published several reviews over the last decade, of varying scientific quality, of the research evidence regarding potential adverse biological and health effects of RF-EMFs.5 12–15 These reviews—by Health Protection England,12 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),13 an Expert European Union (EU) Committee14 and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)15—have, with one exception, not converged around a strong warning about such effects In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm. > Moreover, a growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally have been calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety.18–21 Some politicians have listened: France, Israel, Cyprus and Russia have banned WiFi in preschool and restricted its use in primary schools. Belgium has banned the sale of mobile phones to children under seven. In response to such concerns, several jurisdictions have recently blocked the installation of 5G antennae systems in their communities: Brussels, Florence, Rome, as well as Glastonbury, Frome and Totnes in the UK; and widespread anti-5G campaigns are now emerging in Australia, North America and elsewhere. This is true but is a kind of self-referential policy; places that have banned 5G have often done so for unscientific reasons! Saying that there are anti-5G campaigns is like saying there are anti-mask campaigns; it is not actually evidence of harm. > more conservative jurisdictions’ guidelines, which are based on a wider variety of biological and health effects documented in recent decades [citation needed] - no really, there are citations for other bits, where's the health effects citation? > A striking feature of this public controversy is that various commentators—even those with advanced training in telecommunications physics and engineering—inconsistently refer to quite different specific technologies when they discuss the pros and cons of 5G Well, yes, it's a marketing term. Discussion of local councils and lampposts. Hard to see relevance. No details of harm. > One’s overall assessment of the likelihood that an exposure causes a health condition should take into account a wide variety of evidence, including ‘biological plausibility And "biological plausibility" is where it falls down, because I've not yet seen (and it's not expressed here either) a mechanism other than the raw heating effect of absorption used by the EU SAR metrics which has any plausible biological effect. See para on "non-thermogenic adverse effects" (what effects? How do they work? At what levels?) > Finally, Carpenter has recently published a well-researched analysis of how source of funding correlates with study findings, across many peer-reviewed publications over the last few decades, of the relationship between various kinds of EMF exposure and several cancers.39 He shows convincingly that studies funded by private sector entities, with strong vested interests in maintaining their current use of the sources of EMFs under study, tend to find no association OK, this is a genuine question that does need to be asked, because we know there's been problems with this before. > innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’ Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference.
- scoon1329 6y ago
  > In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm. You missed the exception he mentions. "IARC is the outlier in this respect, having determined in 2011 that EMFs are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/) They concluded that "With 'limited evidence' for carcinogenicity in humans based on an increased risk of glioma – a malignant brain tumour – among heavy users of mobile telephones, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were classified as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'" This suggests more studies are required from a biological perspective in order to form an conclusions either way, which is his point in the opinion piece. > Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference. The full quote is; "Furthermore, a comprehensive Canadian review of the same evidence states that some of the new RF-EMF technologies—such as innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’—are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up—that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...) The point he's making here, once again, is that this is a multi-disciplinary problem and we need further study from a biological perspective as there is not enough evidence to conclude either way. You seem to think that, because he's not a physicist, that he has no idea what he's talking about.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    You seem to think that, because he's not a physicist, that he has no idea what he's talking about. Yes, appeals to authority aren't much use in the present climate. So, that's why he needs to offer convincing evidence. It sounds like he offers none (I haven't read it, just relying on the summary above). "Pulsing" is not exactly a new idea in radio technology, is it? There's only like a century or more of radio systems that do that. As for modulation, does he know what the M in FM radio stands for? The claim that these are new innovations that "biological scientists can't keep up" is just obviously false on its face so what is he talking about? If you plot rates of cancer on a chart you'll find it's actually stable or declining for decades: https://progressreport.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/graphs/din1.jpg https://progressreport.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/graphs... Even as ever newer mobile protocols were rolled out (and really they're more like protocol upgrades than changes to the basic physics), cancer rates were stable for women and declining for men. If mobile tech caused cancers then we'd see it in the statistics by now, there's been plenty of time. We don't. BTW this guy is an epidemiologist, and I've been ranting for the past 8 months on HN that these guys definitely have no idea what they're talking about. The standards in this field are just ludicrously low, so I'm not surprised at all to discover one of them thinks 5G causes cancer :(
happytoexplain 6y ago
The author being a non-expert in the field is useful to know. It doesn't have to be proof of something to be useful information in creating a more whole image. Even if that weren't the case, another point the parent made was that, in their opinion, the quality and tone of the article degrades conversation rather than contributing to it, which is another form of non-proof that is perfectly reasonable to express as an opinion. The parent may have spoken with a disrespectful tone, but "You haven't addressed a single point", is equally flippant and antagonistic. In fact, it's worse, since you're addressing it directly to a participant in the conversation.

pjc50 6y ago

sigh OK, full text: https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595 https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-2135... > Critics of 5G agree6–8—but its supporters do not9 10—that the overall population levels of exposure to RF-EMFs will be greatly increased by the 5G roll-out. One compelling argument for that view is the ‘inverse square law’ of EMF exposure: intensity varies as the inverse of the square of the distance from the emitting source.11 With plans afoot internationally to put a 5G booster antenna on ‘every second or third lamp-post’, it is difficult to believe that overall population exposures will not increase substantially Yes, there will be more antennas. Does not address the question of power levels: part of the point of more antennas is that each individual station can have lower power output. No mention of "watts", antenna ERP, or indeed power anywhere in the article. > International health protection agencies and their scientific advisory bodies have published several reviews over the last decade, of varying scientific quality, of the research evidence regarding potential adverse biological and health effects of RF-EMFs.5 12–15 These reviews—by Health Protection England,12 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),13 an Expert European Union (EU) Committee14 and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)15—have, with one exception, not converged around a strong warning about such effects In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm. > Moreover, a growing number of engineers, scientists, and doctors internationally have been calling on governments to raise their safety standards for RF-EMFs, commission more and better research, and hold off on further increases in public exposure, pending clearer evidence of safety.18–21 Some politicians have listened: France, Israel, Cyprus and Russia have banned WiFi in preschool and restricted its use in primary schools. Belgium has banned the sale of mobile phones to children under seven. In response to such concerns, several jurisdictions have recently blocked the installation of 5G antennae systems in their communities: Brussels, Florence, Rome, as well as Glastonbury, Frome and Totnes in the UK; and widespread anti-5G campaigns are now emerging in Australia, North America and elsewhere. This is true but is a kind of self-referential policy; places that have banned 5G have often done so for unscientific reasons! Saying that there are anti-5G campaigns is like saying there are anti-mask campaigns; it is not actually evidence of harm. > more conservative jurisdictions’ guidelines, which are based on a wider variety of biological and health effects documented in recent decades [citation needed] - no really, there are citations for other bits, where's the health effects citation? > A striking feature of this public controversy is that various commentators—even those with advanced training in telecommunications physics and engineering—inconsistently refer to quite different specific technologies when they discuss the pros and cons of 5G Well, yes, it's a marketing term. Discussion of local councils and lampposts. Hard to see relevance. No details of harm. > One’s overall assessment of the likelihood that an exposure causes a health condition should take into account a wide variety of evidence, including ‘biological plausibility And "biological plausibility" is where it falls down, because I've not yet seen (and it's not expressed here either) a mechanism other than the raw heating effect of absorption used by the EU SAR metrics which has any plausible biological effect. See para on "non-thermogenic adverse effects" (what effects? How do they work? At what levels?) > Finally, Carpenter has recently published a well-researched analysis of how source of funding correlates with study findings, across many peer-reviewed publications over the last few decades, of the relationship between various kinds of EMF exposure and several cancers.39 He shows convincingly that studies funded by private sector entities, with strong vested interests in maintaining their current use of the sources of EMFs under study, tend to find no association OK, this is a genuine question that does need to be asked, because we know there's been problems with this before. > innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’ Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference.

scoon1329 6y ago
> In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm. You missed the exception he mentions. "IARC is the outlier in this respect, having determined in 2011 that EMFs are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/) They concluded that "With 'limited evidence' for carcinogenicity in humans based on an increased risk of glioma – a malignant brain tumour – among heavy users of mobile telephones, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were classified as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'" This suggests more studies are required from a biological perspective in order to form an conclusions either way, which is his point in the opinion piece. > Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference. The full quote is; "Furthermore, a comprehensive Canadian review of the same evidence states that some of the new RF-EMF technologies—such as innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’—are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up—that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...) The point he's making here, once again, is that this is a multi-disciplinary problem and we need further study from a biological perspective as there is not enough evidence to conclude either way. You seem to think that, because he's not a physicist, that he has no idea what he's talking about.
- thu2111 6y ago
  You seem to think that, because he's not a physicist, that he has no idea what he's talking about. Yes, appeals to authority aren't much use in the present climate. So, that's why he needs to offer convincing evidence. It sounds like he offers none (I haven't read it, just relying on the summary above). "Pulsing" is not exactly a new idea in radio technology, is it? There's only like a century or more of radio systems that do that. As for modulation, does he know what the M in FM radio stands for? The claim that these are new innovations that "biological scientists can't keep up" is just obviously false on its face so what is he talking about? If you plot rates of cancer on a chart you'll find it's actually stable or declining for decades: https://progressreport.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/graphs/din1.jpg https://progressreport.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/graphs... Even as ever newer mobile protocols were rolled out (and really they're more like protocol upgrades than changes to the basic physics), cancer rates were stable for women and declining for men. If mobile tech caused cancers then we'd see it in the statistics by now, there's been plenty of time. We don't. BTW this guy is an epidemiologist, and I've been ranting for the past 8 months on HN that these guys definitely have no idea what they're talking about. The standards in this field are just ludicrously low, so I'm not surprised at all to discover one of them thinks 5G causes cancer :(

happytoexplain 6y ago

The author being a non-expert in the field is useful to know. It doesn't have to be proof of something to be useful information in creating a more whole image. Even if that weren't the case, another point the parent made was that, in their opinion, the quality and tone of the article degrades conversation rather than contributing to it, which is another form of non-proof that is perfectly reasonable to express as an opinion. The parent may have spoken with a disrespectful tone, but "You haven't addressed a single point", is equally flippant and antagonistic. In fact, it's worse, since you're addressing it directly to a participant in the conversation.