[scoon1329]

> 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/)

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/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]

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...

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 :(

[scoon1329]

> 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).

My point was more that a physicist may be an authority on the technology itself, but would not necessarily be an authority on the affects it has on a biological system. That's why it has to be a multi-discipliniary approach rather than people being immediately dismissed for not being physicists. Why would you think that a physicist would be more of an authority on causes of human disease than an epidemiologist?

> 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?

Ok his wording is pretty over the top here, but he literally points to a study which suggests as much.

> I'm not surprised at all to discover one of them thinks 5G causes cancer

It was actually the IARC working group for evaluating carcinogenic risks to humans. He was merely referencing their study and findings. And actually, once again, they're not saying that 5G causes cancer. They're saying that the evidence from their specific study suggests it might, but it's not conclusive, and that further studies are required to get better evidence either way.

Look I'm not saying that the evidence suggests 5G is harmful, I'm just taking issue with some of the specific dismissals presented above as I think they selectively cut out parts of the quotes that actually change their meaning somewhat.

[thu2111]

I think they're likely more of an authority because physicists have been studying radio, EM energy and its effects on the atomic level for more than a century. Meanwhile, epidemiologists are not biologists. Look at Neil Ferguson, one of the world's most famous. His actual background isn't biology, it's ... physics!

If you want to get the views of biologists on the effects of EM on the body, then great! You'd want to talk to microbiologists about that. Physicists can probably also be informative, but epidemiologists can only look at graphs like the one I linked to previously. They're more or less data scientists, posing as disease experts, but what they're doing when you drill in is what anyone who knows R and a bit of stats could do.

The IARC finding seems to be phrased very ambiguously. I would read it as saying "we have no evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Which is true but not really helpful for moving the debate forward, as at some point absence of evidence does need to be taken as evidence of absence or else you'd be stuck in the precautionary principle of not doing anything forever.