Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

Unknown.

There is an impressive-looking group of credentials behind a petition[1] to halt 5G rollouts in the EU until more research can be done. The science just isn't settled yet, partly because doing a rigorous controlled trial in real world conditions is just about impossible.

Keep in mind it's not just about cancer, it's any health effect of any kind. The nature of the shorter wavelengths of 5G means that more transmit power and/or more transmitters to cover the same area will be required, so we can't necessarily take what we know about the current bands and assume these are equally safe. Too many confounding factors.

There's an excellent writeup from Vox on the state of the science. It's a mess, to put it lightly. [2]

[1]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNV0U...

[2]: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17067214/cellphone-cancer-5g-e...

View on HN

Any name in particular you consider impressive? I don't know anybody on that list, but see several people associated with "electrosensitivity" organizations, which I don't associate with high quality science.

Moreover, you'd think that such a "high profile" petition would be hosted on something a little bit more prominent than, you know, a Google Drive shared doc.

Here are the websites:

https://www.5gappeal.eu/

https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/

The list of names is not impressive.

If you drill little bit into the background of people, the list is full of crackpots or confused old people. Last time it came up, I checked people from my country (Finland) and they were all crackpots.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17970112

I'm just curious what your own scientific credentials are, to be able to label other scientists in this field as crackpots?

In case you aren't aware, and it seems you are not, there is a mountain of research and evidence on the effects of electromagnetic fields on biology.

Or are you going to dismiss 26,813 publications and all of their writers as crackpots?

https://www.emf-portal.org/en

I checked just three people from the list that they are all promoting pseudoscience.

* Electromagnetic hypersensitivity theory has no scientific basis and double blind studies show that the symptoms are not dependent on electromagnetic field.

* Dowsing aka divining is medieval practice with no scientific basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

> mountain of research and evidence on the effects of electromagnetic fields on biology.

This is trivially true and too generic statement to be used as an argument. For example in vitro studies don't transfer into in vivo. Especially in high frequencies.https://www.emf-portal.org/en is good source f and as you can conclude from the wast volume of research, it is well researched subject. No significant negative effects has been established from cell phone or wi-fi radiation unless the energy is well above the safe levels.

> Electromagnetic hypersensitivity theory has no scientific basis and double blind studies show that the symptoms are not dependent on electromagnetic field.

Of course it has scientific basis. The scientific basis is that electromagnetic fields alter biological processes, thereby it is possible to produce effects in both animals and humans.

And if you deny that electromagnetic fields can alter biological processes, then you really completely deny science.

In addition, EHS is really a poor choice as a descriptive term for these symptoms. It is no different than saying that when someone punches you repeatedly, you develop human fist hypersensitivity.

It is a misunderstanding that people who suffer from EHS could somehow sense microwave radiation directly. This is impossible, because humans have no direct sensing apparatus for this type of radiation.

What happens is that they feel the secondary effects of the disruption in their biology. For example a change or disruption in the ATP production of the cell can lead to many secondary effects, as can can the effects on cell wall permeability, just as two examples.

Trying to do provocation tests on human subjects, only really shows a misunderstanding of what is happening.

How many Navy veterans have that sensitivity? You would think serving next to a radar some of them would.

This is a good point.

This was known before the advent of cell phones by radar operators as radar sickness. The army has known about these problems for a long time.

You can read here an excerpt from 1973 from the WHO symposium in Warsaw on electromagnetic radiation. The Russians had studied this phenomenon for 20 years prior, and the conclusion is in the symposium papers:

https://twitter.com/ChronicExposure/status/10057668842167255...

“Typical mutations in children of radar soldiers”:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181005111447.h...

A study that was literally published this week? Wake me up when it's been peer-reviewed and replicated.

> The scientific basis is that electromagnetic fields alter biological processes

That's not a basis, that's an assumption. An assumption that must be proved though double-blind trials. An assumption that has never held water through multiple studies.

> It is a misunderstanding that people who suffer from EHS could somehow sense microwave radiation directly.

It is a misunderstanding pushed by the very people who are now making outlandish claims about the safety of RF radiation.

> What happens is that they feel the secondary effects of the disruption in their biology.

Again, that has been disproven time and time again.

Most of 5G will be deployed in the same bands as GSM/UMTS/LTE anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com