5G - Are We Safe Or Insane?

[mansr]

Are you for real? I can't even determine which kind of crazy that is.

[mansr]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

There are papers published in reputable biological journals re Ca++ channel interference by freq.s in this range.  Unclear what issues that may cause for a phone user (nor did I spend much time on evaluation of the papers).

What is the intensity of the radio waves (compared to the ones used in those studies), and how deep into the body do they penetrate? I'd imagine those frequencies are attenuated pretty quickly by body tissues. Either way, crazy rants aren't helping.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Axial said:

I recommend you watch the video from the previous page, last post.

It's only under nine minutes. 

That would be nine minutes of my life I'd never get back, so... nope. I'd also risk dying of laughter.

[mansr]

9 hours ago, Axial said:

It's funny; somehow the thought crossed my mind that someone was going to say some to that effect. 

Dommage, because the guy knows what he's talking about. 

So he knows it's bonkers and says it anyway?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Axial said:

@ CES 2019 5G was present but did not make big waves

5G uses high frequencies. Very small waves.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, jabbr said:

it’s hard to that the rest seriously

That's what I thought when I saw the domain name.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, bluesman said:

As “getting a charge” from an issue is also a euphemism for being excited about it

I see what you did there.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Axial said:

I think you are about tinfoil. I noticed that right from the bat. 

I think you mean hat. Yours, that is.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Could be the big Bozon in this case.

And the Large Hardon Collider.

[mansr]

46 minutes ago, Jud said:

I suppose the general idea on one side of the question is to try to kill as many pathogens as possible even after symptoms are gone, lowering chances there will be some left with higher drug resistance to reproduce.  The general idea on the other side I suppose is that you've got a huge number of bacteria in your system at all times; they can interchange DNA; so why breed drug resistance into any part of that population?

 

This is when you get good scientific questions, when there are logical, factually supported arguments for multiple courses of action.

I recall hearing somewhere that one reason for completing an antibiotics course even after symptoms have subsided is to ensure the infection is thoroughly defeated and doesn't come back.

[mansr]

27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

OTOH, I cannot tell if we are arguing with a bot or a crazy person

Could be a crazy bot.

[mansr]

57 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd like to know why God likes differential equations so much!

Who doesn't?

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

I would love to read the article but apparently I have hit my limit of articles I am allowed to read.

Just clear your cookies for the domain. Or use "porn mode" in your browser.

[mansr]

56 minutes ago, jabbr said:

2) we are on a low carb diet

That can be fixed by adding extra pepperoni.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Frozen pizza is not a good way to eat!

Frozen pizza is the mp3 of food.

[mansr]

Is there any evidence of Huawei actually doing anything nefarious?

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Arpiben said:

No real evidence only some governments waking up and realising too late that Huawei the dragon:

- is Nr.1 Telecoms equipment manufacturer (since 2012)

- has already a dominant position in terms of equipment deployed in most of World 's Telecom networks.

- is supposed to have more than 150.000 employees.

- is now innovating instead of following / copying others.

- etc...

Banning Huawei from 5G bids is one thing. Replacing the supposed nefarious already installed equipment is unrealistic (many years)...

All true, but why is nobody similarly afraid of Cisco? For all you know, their routers could all be sending data to the NSA.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Are you aware of the NSA "tap" on AT&T's trans-Pacific cable facility in SFO?

I'd expect nothing less. GCHQ listens to trans-Atlantic traffic. Everybody snoops on whatever they can.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

They have, but not many. I wouldn't know what percentage were denied vs. granted.

When it's all secret, does it even make a difference? Is it a crime if nobody is allowed to know it's illegal?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

I suppose it does to the people who never knew they weren't surveilled.

If the targets can never know, why should the NSA care about the ruling?

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

Why should they bother getting a ruling then?

To cover their asses most of the time. They're unlikely to get caught either way, and if only 0.03% of those instances are deemed wrongful, they're pretty much untouchable.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking have both issued sinister warnings not dissimilar to that of Jacque Ellul regarding the lack of regulation of Artificial Intelligence.

Neither of them has a background with any relevance for AI. Musk founded OpenAI, but there is no suggestion that he actually contributes (other than financially) to their work. See also https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease.

[mansr]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

I'm still pulling for Elon Musk's satellite internet to render the whole 5G thing moot.

Satellite has too high latency.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Musk's plan is thousands of low orbit satellites. These will have latency comparable to optical fiber networking on the ground.

Low orbit means no dish antennas. I foresee signal strength issues.

 

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

He always aims big. Says he wants around half of all internet traffic to go thru his company.

If that happens, it won't be long before people start accusing him of spying on them, just as they do with Google, once everybody's darling, now. That might not be a bad thing, actually. The man can be quite annoying.

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

I haven't made a claim that the shareholder is influencing the news coverage in this case.. I'm just saying it's something to think about... you probably were't aware of who the largest shareholder is and potential vested interest, so I was just sharing some information.

If statements made in the paper can be validated, one doesn't need to know who the shareholders are. Even RT sometimes runs a true story. Of course, that's so rare that reading it at all is a waste of time.