Anti-5G meeting on the North Shore, sigh

Forums › New Zealand Mobile and Wireless › Anti-5G meeting on the North Shore, sigh

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 30

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2485268 17-May-2020 18:10

Handle9:

Discriminating against people running competitively in groups could be described as racism. That doesn't make it an accurate description.

There are different definitions of terrorism but they all generally agree with Encyclopaedia Britannica, which calls it the 'calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.' In other words, give up on 5G or we will keep lighting fires.

Is it going to stop with these fires? History suggests otherwise. The violence will escalate and that prospect is frightening. Losing the ability to communicate is frightening. Maybe it is just aspirational terrorism at this point, but the intention is to terrorise, there can be no doubt about that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2485269 17-May-2020 18:18

Couldn't find NZ-specific documentation, but the Australian stuff certainly seems to class attacks on cellphone towers as terrorism:

A ‘terrorist act’ is an act or threat intended to advance a political, ideological or religious cause by coercing or intimidating an Australian or foreign government or the public, by causing serious harm to people or property, endangering life, creating a serious risk to the health and safety of the public, or seriously disrupting certain types of critical infrastructure, electronic systems or trade.

At the national level, CI is defined as, ‘those physical facilities, supply chains, information technologies and communication networks which, if destroyed, degraded or rendered unavailable for an extended period, would significantly impact the social or economic wellbeing of the nation or affect Australia’s ability to conduct national defence and ensure national security’.

‘Significant’ in the context of this definition is defined as an event or incident that puts at risk public safety and confidence, threatens our economic security, harms Australia’s international competitiveness, or impedes the continuity of government and its services.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2485328 17-May-2020 20:29

NZ National Institute of Weather and Atmosphere statement on 5G and weather forecasting:

NIWA: Weather forecasters will not be affected by Vodafone’s 5G network initial roll-out in New Zealand, according to NIWA’s chief scientist Environmental Information Dr Jochen Schmidt.
...
“The frequencies of concern are microwave frequencies at around 24 GHz to 28 GHz that are being looked at for use in 5G. If not carefully managed these may have the potential to result in unwanted emissions below 24 GHz that are close to the frequency used to detect water vapour by satellite sensing systems (23.8 GHz).

“However, we understand that the planned 5G network announced by Vodafone uses lower frequencies of 3.5 GHz and will not affect weather satellite technology in New Zealand.

Oblivian

7297 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2485338 17-May-2020 20:54

gzt: NZ National Institute of Weather and Atmosphere statement on 5G and weather forecasting:

NIWA: Weather forecasters will not be affected by Vodafone’s 5G network initial roll-out in New Zealand, according to NIWA’s chief scientist Environmental Information Dr Jochen Schmidt.
...
“The frequencies of concern are microwave frequencies at around 24 GHz to 28 GHz that are being looked at for use in 5G. If not carefully managed these may have the potential to result in unwanted emissions below 24 GHz that are close to the frequency used to detect water vapour by satellite sensing systems (23.8 GHz).

“However, we understand that the planned 5G network announced by Vodafone uses lower frequencies of 3.5 GHz and will not affect weather satellite technology in New Zealand.

They had to do that after some clever cookie running the Social media account released a post about their concerns for interference based on overseas trials and ran with it. I think Sbiddle may have been one of the ones to light a fire up them to correct

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/08/niwa-apologises-for-5g-weather-confusion.html

RunningMan

8954 posts

Uber Geek

#2485343 17-May-2020 21:02

gzt: NZ National Institute of Weather and Atmosphere statement on 5G and weather forecasting:

NIWA: Weather forecasters will not be affected by Vodafone’s 5G network initial roll-out in New Zealand, according to NIWA’s chief scientist Environmental Information Dr Jochen Schmidt.
...
“The frequencies of concern are microwave frequencies at around 24 GHz to 28 GHz that are being looked at for use in 5G. If not carefully managed these may have the potential to result in unwanted emissions below 24 GHz that are close to the frequency used to detect water vapour by satellite sensing systems (23.8 GHz).

“However, we understand that the planned 5G network announced by Vodafone uses lower frequencies of 3.5 GHz and will not affect weather satellite technology in New Zealand.

This is 9 months old - August 2019.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2486323 19-May-2020 13:35

It's still relevant and topical. No issues for NZ local weather forecasting.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2486325 19-May-2020 13:36

This one is Newshub November 2019. It's not hard to see why there are issues for some people with descriptions like this:

Newshub: Scientists around the globe are pleading with governments to stop 5G, as they say the intense radiation has direct harmful effects on humans that could cause illnesses like cancer.

The description does not match the interview. Seems to be a respected scientist advocating the precautionary principle and not suggesting any of those things in the description are known true at all. I watched about half of this so far.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2486341 19-May-2020 13:59

Anti-5G idiots complained that @PaulBrislen was on Breakfast saying 5G is not harmful. Someone reported the show to the BSA complaining it was unbalanced reporting.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2486345 19-May-2020 14:03

freitasm:

Anti-5G idiots complained that @PaulBrislen was on Breakfast saying 5G is not harmful. Someone reported the show to the ASA complaining it was unbalanced reporting.

Hopefully a good chance for a public response that puts these clowns in their place.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2486669 19-May-2020 21:23

Article in Stuff published May 2019 claims various kinds of cancer:

Stuff: Calls for review of 5G technology amid health concerns: University of Auckland psychology professor Susan Pockett said radio frequency emissions were linked to many health problems.

"Approximately 600 peer-reviewed research reports from a range of international scientists show us that radio frequency radiation is linked to infertility, diabetes, various kinds of cancer and psychiatric disorders," she said.

"The present situation is already bad and adding 5G on top of it will hugely increase the amount of radiation to which everyone is exposed and make the whole situation much worse."

These are extremely strong statements. It does not surprise me that many people will take these statements very seriously. I have not read the research referred to by the professor, or the professor's article in the NZ Medical Journal at this time. The literature I've read previously in this area has not provided any replicable evidence of effects not reproducible by localised heating. Ie; warm cellphone.

It should be relatively easy to design an experiment to show these claimed effects if the effects are real.

shrub

775 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2486674 19-May-2020 21:32

freitasm:

Anti-5G idiots complained that @PaulBrislen was on Breakfast saying 5G is not harmful. Someone reported the show to the BSA complaining it was unbalanced reporting.

Maree Guenole. She is also an anti vaxer.

Says it all really

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2486692 19-May-2020 21:38

The article above has balance and is not a journalistic fail at all in that sense. Where does it fail? It does not show how far outside the evidence and therefore how far outside the scientific consensus these claims are at this time. It simply contrasts these claims to other claims from official regulators.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2486698 19-May-2020 21:59

gzt: Article in Stuff published May 2019 claims various kinds of cancer:

Stuff: Calls for review of 5G technology amid health concerns: University of Auckland psychology professor Susan Pockett said radio frequency emissions were linked to many health problems.

"Approximately 600 peer-reviewed research reports from a range of international scientists show us that radio frequency radiation is linked to infertility, diabetes, various kinds of cancer and psychiatric disorders," she said.

"The present situation is already bad and adding 5G on top of it will hugely increase the amount of radiation to which everyone is exposed and make the whole situation much worse."

These are extremely strong statements. It does not surprise me that many people will take these statements very seriously. I have not read the research referred to by the professor, or the professor's article in the NZ Medical Journal at this time. The literature I've read previously in this area has not provided any replicable evidence of effects not reproducible by localised heating. Ie; warm cellphone.

It should be relatively easy to design an experiment to show these claimed effects if the effects are real.

Hmmm, a psychology professor. I wonder what expertise she has on radio waves and radiation. There was a very good diagram floating around showing where the 5G signals were on the spectrum relative to all the "bad" stuff. Not even close.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

zenourn

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2486744 19-May-2020 23:18

Technofreak:

Hmmm, a psychology professor. I wonder what expertise she has on radio waves and radiation. There was a very good diagram floating around showing where the 5G signals were on the spectrum relative to all the "bad" stuff. Not even close.

Susan Pockett has experience with local field potentials and event related potentials of brain activity which are related to electromagnetic (EM) fields. Her main interest is how these relate to consciousness (very debatable, a rather niche theory). A large jump is then made that since EM fields are important for consciousness this means that external EM fields are therefore dangerous to health. However, what is required to answer this is well-designed epidemiological studies with solid statistical methodology, and all such studies have shown no evidence of any risk from non-ionising low-power EM radiation.

I've also looked at numerous of the studies in rats looking at different exposures and cancers in different places. Most of it was just noise. As an example, one paper had over 300 statistical comparisons (GSM/CDMA, male/female, different radiation levels, site of tumour) and the results had no pattern and just were random chance (no correction for multiple comparisons and with their methods could expect ~5% positive by chance). However, people focus on the dozen positive "hits" and say yes, causes cancer.

Having scientists pollute the debate with misinformation is something we really don't need. The problem is that scientific peer review is really just that: review by your peers who don't have the ability to see all the issues. In my area I focus particularly on mathematics/statistics (was my initial background) and I have to suggest substantial revisions to most papers that I review. We really need a post-publication review system were we can properly rate the quality of research.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2486748 19-May-2020 23:34

zenourn:
Susan Pockett has experience with local field potentials and event related potentials of brain activity which are related to electromagnetic (EM) fields. Her main interest is how these relate to consciousness (very debatable, a rather niche theory). A large jump is then made that since EM fields are important for consciousness this means that external EM fields are therefore dangerous to health.

Like several other "experts", this is someone who says what the 5G conspiracy-theorists want to hear, so they're regarded as an authority on the issue. Another example was the guy who came up way back in this thread that NZ 5G conspiracy theorists imported because he was saying what they wanted to hear. His academic credentials were virtually nonexistent, but he was an "expert" because he said what they wanted.

A while back I was at a talk given by someone who literally did their PhD on the effects of cellphone signals on humans. Now that's someone who can speak authoritatively on the subject. She commented that the result of her work was there was nothing to worry about, but that's not what the 5G conspiracists want to hear so they go to someone with little or no relevant qualifications who says what they do want to hear. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy really, anyone with real knowledge of the topic won't say what they want to hear so they resort to going to people without real knowledge of the topic.

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 30