I was utterly convinced for the longest time that alarmism related to EMFs, microwaves, RFs etc. was nothing but quackery. “Rational” liberal types love to talk about these fears as such, of course – I remember distinctly how utterly shat on Jill Stein was for questioning the safety (in a very “we don’t know yet” sort of way!) of wireless devices by the media and by reddit liberals.

I would bet the last of my savings that Verizon or the CTIA bankrolled a psyop to inject the idea that 5G causes gay Chinese cancer or whatever into Q-brains so anyone not snorting Qopium dismissed fears related to the tech out of hand. The European Parliament is apparently continuously championing research on the potentially carcinogenic effects of these rays and has been for a while… Idk. Shit’s just wild.

(On my mind because I just watched a doc called “Generation Zapped”, something I thought would be right-wing conspiracist garbage that turned out to be something I recommend, if you’re okay with feeling even more fucking insane)

  • SovereignStateOP
    link
    3
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I should mention it’s not exactly cut-and-dry, but the most condemnatory thing one could honestly say about claims of danger is that they’re not studied extensively enough yet. Seems the “international scientific community” is pretty much in agreement that RFs are carcinogenic… but the corporate FCC and CTIA “scientists” in the U.S. will continue telling everyone that it’s all harmless until they’re forced to fess up.

    (edit: I also want to apologize to any international comrades for the U.S.-centric nature of this post, I’m 100% certainly not knowledgeable on how your nation might be dealing with this information, or if you’d be considered fucking insane by your compatriots for believing in the science)

    • @cfgaussian
      link
      3
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      That doesn’t really make sense. I’m not a biologist or a doctor but i am fairly certain it is physically very difficult for radio frequency radiation to be carcinogenic. Cancer causing radiation works by damaging the DNA of cells in your body and it can only do that if it is ionizing radiation. Radio frequency does not have enough energy to be ionizing, and neither do microwaves by the way. You need to go into the UV spectrum and beyond for that.

      I’m not sure how you concluded that the “international scientific community” is in agreement that there are any such issues with radio frequencies, but i haven’t seen or heard of a single study from a reputable source that definitely concludes this.

      There are alarmist documentaries about all kind of topics and you can always cherrypick data and so-called “experts” to support a lot of pseudo-scientific bunk, but we as Marxists need to be a bit more careful about falling for that stuff.

      Look, i guess anything is possible and it hasn’t been ruled out, but you have to remember radio waves aren’t really something new, humans have been immersed in radio frequency radiation for at least a century now. As with everything, the dose makes the poison - if there are adverse effects then they would likely only occur on long term exposure to extraordinarily high intensities. The regular background levels should be mostly fine.

      • SovereignStateOP
        link
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2021)690012 Falling into the same unscientific gaslighty shit the rational libs do. No investigation, etc. etc.

        “The upcoming deployment of 5G mobile networks will allow for significantly faster mobile broadband speeds and increasingly extensive mobile data usage. Technical innovations include a different transmission system (MIMO: use of multiple‐input and multiple‐output antennas), directional signal transmission or reception (beamforming), and the use of other frequency ranges. At the same time, a change is expected in the exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of humans and the environment. In addition to those used to date, the 5G pioneer bands identified at EU level have frequencies of 700 MHz, 3.6 GHz (3.4 to 3.8 GHz) and 26 GHz (24.25 to 27.5 GHz). The first two frequencies (FR1) are similar to those used for 2G to 4G technologies and have been investigated in both epidemiological and experimental studies for different end points (including carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental effects), while 26 GHz (FR2) and higher frequencies have not been adequately studied for the same end points. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency (RF) EMF as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2B) and recently recommended RF exposure for re-evaluation ‘with high priority’ (IARC, 2019). Since 2011 a great number of studies have been performed, both epidemiological and experimental. The present review addresses the current knowledge regarding both carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards of RF as exploited by 5G. There are various in vivo experimental and epidemiological studies on RF at a lower frequency range (450 to 6000 MHz), which also includes the frequencies used in previous generations’ broadband cellular networks, but very few (and inadequate) on the higher frequency range (24 to 100 GHz, centimetre/MMW). The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence of reproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.”

        “Unfortunately, there is a lack of information on the potential harms of RF-EMF. The information gap creates scope for deniers as well as alarmists, giving rise to social and political tension in many EU countries (OECD, 2017). Campaigns to inform the citizens should be therefore a priority. Information campaigns should be carried out at all levels, beginning with schools. They should show the potential health risks, but also the opportunities for digital development, what infrastructural alternatives exist for 5G transmission, the safety measures (exposure limits) taken by the EU and Member States, and the correct use of the mobile phone. Only by sound and accurate information can we win back citizen trust and reach a shared agreement over a technological choice which, if properly managed, can bring great social and economic benefits”.

      • SovereignStateOP
        link
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        The CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association) sued the city of San Francisco for “infringing on their free speech” in mandating that cell providers ensure informed consent to consumers that their products possibly cause cancer.

        The point is that the safety testing done in the U.S. is being performed by corporate executives and the FCC, not by what one should consider scientific institutions.

        European states are looking into the effects of prolonged exposure to a variety of different types of radiation, as well as promoting the study (note, study, not proclaiming as truth without scientific research) of alleged disorders / diseases such as electro-hypersensitivity disorder, and whether they’re psychosomatic or entirely biological. The U.S. is not researching any of this at all.

        Why admit in one sentence that you don’t know that much about any of it and then claim that I’m being uncareful and falling for bunk? Did you read the link at all or just unscientifically and kneejerkedly react (exactly what Telecom agencies and wireless corpos want you to do)? The main takeaway should be that the “science” claiming cell phones, etc. as unequivocally safe with no downsides whatsoever is coming directly from corporate and state groups that stand to gain directly from it. Medical and scientific groups, like the WHO, are much less likely to make a definitive statement either way as to their safety and consistently claim “we’re still researching this.”

        edit: https://www.who.int/initiatives/the-international-emf-project/docs/default-source/radiation-international-emf-project-reports/emf-iac-2015-progress-report

        “The EMF Project is open to any WHO Member State government, i.e. department of health, or representatives of national institutions concerned with radiation protection. Since the commencement of the EMF Project, over 50 national authorities have been involved. In the past year, new representatives have been delegated by their governments, including Belgium, Latvia, Malaysia, Spain, Switzerland and Tunisia. During the reporting period, the EMF Project has been in contact with several new countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Chile, Estonia, Iraq, Latvia, Madagascar, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar and Sudan.” The progress report assures us that the research isn’t over yet, as well.