Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

On another note, I would be open to the possibility that Satan is real and is the cause behind cancer if and only if the proper evidence is provided.

What's this a reference to? Last I read there was no established link between cancer and EM Radiation[0].

[0] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...

As I understand it, Brussels is governed by a parliamentary system, not a direct democracy. The advantage of such a system, in theory, is that these representatives can have cooler heads than the mob of common rabble outside.

Thus a good way to fix trash on the streets is to pay people to clean it up, and after a short while you can get clean streets with a very moderate level of cleaning effort.

Painting a wall a novel color is a new, unstudied EM radiation exposure.

Can you link to a scientific study that proves anything is completely safe? Ironically more money has been spent proving electromagnetic radiation and vaccines are safe than most naturally occurring substances, because the public is paranoid about those things/it is a "sexy" area of research.

They've literally put animals into cages and exposed them to 1000%+ levels of typical EM exposure, and still not witnessed this supposed cancer link. But science cannot say anything is "completely safe" because that isn't how logical reasoning or the scientific method work. All we can say is that a mechanism of unsafety has yet to be discovered.

I am a software researcher in the field and I do not think this is the case. Most 5G deployments for the foreseeable future will be on 3.5Ghz. I do not think mmWave (30Ghz+) has been accepted for commercial use in any country. In fact, in many roadmaps mmWave is referred to as 5G NR (new radio), which to my understanding was left for later deployments. To give you an idea why: the mmWave receivers and transmitters (at my current facility) are the size of a door. I think the problem is shrinking those doors to fit your smartphone, but then again, I do not work on the physical layer nor have much insight regarding regulations.

I think you're a victim of the fallacy of eternal growth thaught for years by capitalist and communist economists alike (and even picked up by most green movements around the globe). If you realize that our consumption is way above it's sustainable limit, the only way to prove that we have really evolved from the barbarism of a pack of wolves is to try everything possible to fold back consumption into this limit.

And since we start crossing some irreversibility thresholds, this means acting now. So we should start cutting consumption and innovate existing technologies so that they become more efficient, instead of increasing consumption and hoping (which roots back to religion – it's kind of interesting that in a time of the decline of classic, philosophical religions, most of the people have adopted blind trust into technology, which does not recognise hardship or offer any consolence in it) for some random technological breakthrough (which would then need years to be adapted on scale – of course we can still search (R&D is not that big of a polluter (except for nukes))). I really would like to see some calculations for "the bigger picture", which show that 5G and the entailing consumption frenzy will bring us nearer to a sustainable society.

Practically for remote-controlled exvacators: why can't you just put a remote control-terminal ontop of the next fibre-"hub"? 5G (or at least the part, where you build small cells with high-frequency-bands) won't be deployed in Alaska anytime soon and this is something which you can easily add on todays infrastructure once you realize that it's actually beneficial. Maybe you should also take a step back on exvacation – with steel and concrete making up about 15% of carbon-dioxide emissions, I doubt that reducing transportation for construction workers (in industrialized countries, I doubt that any construction "worker" in China or Arabia has a car...) has anywhere near the same impact as a 5% reduction in construction.

4G sucks at coverage and handset count is nowhere near enough to justify 4G hardware and power consumption in most places.

3G yes, it sort of fell through between 2G and 4G - smaller coverage compared to 2G, smaller data throughput compared to 4G.

This makes logical sense, but isn't the case in my experience. Many games look noticeably better on my Switch's 720p screen than on my larger 1080p monitor, despite running at native resolution (720p handheld vs 1080p docked) on each.

There's been tons of studies on this. All (reputable ones[0]) indicate that there is no danger.

[0] I specify reputable because there are some pretty shady studies. Shady because: results can't be reproduced; exposures given are many orders of magnitude above what a person would receive; suspicious funding; non-reputable journals; etc

The problem here is that the media wants simplistic answers as "healthy or not healthy" but studies don't have such conclusions. What studies find out is "eggs increase X and decrease the probability of Y happening". This is not about science being difficult but an understanding of the outcomes being difficult.

This is also how some people try to discredit science. For example, I was highly irritated by Dilbert's creator's argument on defending Trump's climate policies, he said something about swimming after eating previously deemed hazardous but now declared safe, therefore you can't trust experts.

That being said, it does, as 32032141 suggests, tell a fair amount about nocebo effects.

I monitor my muscle spasms (and the rest of my body for that matter) fairly closely. The spasms don't happen often, maybe once a month or two (at most? Not sure... it's rare..) if I'm not carrying a cell in pocket with the data connection on.

Please don't say "just" in your head. It's implying that psychological conditions aren't as significant or real as physical ones. They are very real and need to be treated just like anything else.