
Bay Area city blocks 5G deployments over cancer concerns - LeoPanthera
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/bay-area-city-blocks-5g-deployments-over-cancer-concerns/
======
Asparagirl
I live in a part of unincorporated Marin county (Tamalpais Valley) that has a
Mill Valley postal address, and the discussion about this issue on our local
NextDoor was BANANAS. You could satirize this situation any way you like and
it wouldn’t come close to how terrible and anti-science the comments were.

Meanwhile, I don’t even have cellphone service of any kind at my own house,
not even 3G/4G, thanks to a combination of hills and NIMBYism about more
towers. My family has to rely on a combination of a microcell and WiFi
calling. It’s infuriating.

Actual discussion:

Guy: Come to this meeting or else they might put a 5G cell on a telephone pole
right outside your house!

Me: OMG that would be amazing, yes please!

~~~
photos_victim
If it makes you feel better, the discussion of 5G on Nextdoor in Oakland was
and remains bonkers. It’s not Marin, it’s people of a certain age. There just
happens to be more of them in Marin.

~~~
WalterSear
One of my physicians won't take me seriously because he's had too much of them
and their abuse of the internet. He would rather that I stuck to exactly what
he had prescribed - that was failing - than humour me, my degree, and my
academic journal access.

Fortunately, the specialist he referred me to was pleased with the steps I
have been taking.

I can't really blame the first specialist - I'll concur that he is going to do
the greatest good to the greatest number with his tactic. But, it means that
our interests are in conflict: not an ideal relationship to have with your
medical counsel.

~~~
wahern

      not an ideal relationship to have with your medical counsel
    

It's a reasonable relationship to have considering you'll only spend an hour
or so a year in direct consultation. In some sense it is ideal. He's putting
you on notice that you can't rely on his advice in such a context because he
has neither the access nor the diagnostic resources to personalize his advice,
neither in the moment nor especially on an ongoing basis. Time budgeting is at
the root of many professional relationships and their tensions. If you want
more personalized advice, you have to be prepared to pay for it.

I've run some ideas past doctors and have always tried to make clear that I
understand any thumbs up or thumbs down is contingent on the absence of
complicating factors. But that's a difficult position in which to put a
doctor, lawyer, engineer or most any other professional. Even if they agree to
play along, the value of their affirmation is questionable.

------
bmurray7jhu
Under 47 USC § 332(c)(7), the FCC can administratively set aside local laws
regulating cell towers if the FCC determines the regulations are based on the
local government's perception of safety risks related to RF emissions

> No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may

> regulate the placement, construction, and modification of

> personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the

> environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the

> extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s

> regulations concerning such emissions.

> 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(b)(IV)

~~~
adrianratnapala
> if the FCC determines the regulations are based on the local government's
> perception of safety risks related to RF emissions

Which creates an incentive to the localities to create other pretexts. The FCC
could try anyway, but it would have to pick its its fights.

...and that's not a bad thing. It's good for various groups (in this case
local councils) around society to be able to push back against centralized
diktats. The issue here is that (a) such groups are often batty, and (b) the
pushback comes in the form of saying "no" to what is other people's business.

------
linsomniac
Reminds me of that tower that was causing all sorts of ailments in the
community, only to find out it hadn't been active for 6 weeks.

[https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-
revela...](https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-revelation-
in-iburst-tower-battle.html)

------
robterrell
I live in Mill Valley, and I must admit, sadly, I was passively following the
controversy on Nextdoor merely for entertainment value. (It was absolutely
bonkers. 375 posts on the thread last time I looked.)

I did not think the city council would actually act on this. Putting on my
big-boy pants to go fight this.

Help please! I need ammunition -- if you have links to peer-reviewed research
refuting the nonsense, please share.

~~~
noobermin
Point out that the sun gives them more energy per time.

Point out that light bulbs probably give them more energy per time.

Tell them to hold up their hands to a light bulb (or do this yourself) so they
can see visible light from light bulbs are enough to penetrate the skin, yet
we don't get sunburnt sitting under a light bulbs all night.

~~~
programmarchy
Frequency matters, not just energy. There’s a reason microwave ovens operate
at the frequency they do.

You’d be better off citing evidence that the frequencies used in 5G don’t have
adverse long term effects on biological systems.

We’ve had millions of years to evolve complex biological systems to deal with
the radiation from visible and UV light spectrum. Microwave radiation, not so
much. It’s fine for people to be cautious.

~~~
noobermin
You're right, the point is as long as you're below UV, then you can think in
terms of dielectric heating is the important take away, because it's only when
ionization can occur that you start to care about cancer I guess. But no, the
reasons why microwave ovens work have less to do with their frequency than UV
interactions do, which are QM in nature. The only real effect wavelength has
in classical EM matter interactions is penetration depth.

Anything longer wavelength than visible light has less energy per photon and
thus can't ionize, that goes beyond saying, may be I should have opened with
that. The only thing that matters after that is intensity and penetration
depth.

------
kyledrake
Far more people in Marin County will die from diseases caused by air pollution
from cars, exasperated by the bay area's inability to properly zone
development and build real mass transit solutions. You would think that they
would try to fix the actual problems in their community, but I guess it's
easier to set policy based on an article they read on some conspiracy blog.

~~~
ac29
Anyone who's sat in Bay Area traffic wants changes -- don't let that cloud the
facts: car based transportation is not a major source of emissions in the Bay
Area, and overall emissions have been dropping since at least 1990 [1].

Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, aka the stuff that causes disease) is less
than 20% due to on-road vehicles. The big sources are "combustion" (burning
organic matter) and fires. [1]

[1]
[http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Researc...](http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/BY2011_CAPSummary.ashx?la=en)

~~~
jquast
That report doesn't cover pollutants created by brake dust, which is a problem
even from electric vehicles. See
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170303091332.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170303091332.htm)

I just wanted to suggest that respiratory health issues caused by vehicle
traffic may be a more complicated issue than the metrics of that report
suggests.

------
SigmundA
Worries about Ghz radiation at probably less than 100 watts from a tower that
follows inverse-square, then walks around outside under 1000 watt per meter at
the ground terahertz radiation from the nuclear fireball in sky that actually
is ionizing and can cause cancer...

Be careful that light-bulb in your room puts out 10-100x the radiation of your
cell phone.

~~~
pixelpoet
Doesn't radio have inverse cube falloff? That's the thing that somewhat
worried me about mobile phones, it has inverse cube falloff and has to speak
to a tower miles away, so putting it against your brain for hours on end (I
don't like calling, so that's not an issue to me) seems like a bad idea.

~~~
pdonis
_> Doesn't radio have inverse cube falloff?_

No, inverse square.

 _> has to speak to a tower miles away_

But the tower has a very sensitive antenna, so your phone doesn't need to put
much power into transmitting. The effect of the phone on your brain and body
is small compared to ordinary thermal noise at your body's temperature.

 _> putting it against your brain for hours on end_

If you're going to be talking that much and are worried about this (which I
don't think you need to be, but everyone has to make their own judgments), you
can use a bluetooth headset. Bluetooth transmit power is an order of magnitude
smaller, at least, than cell phone transmit power.

~~~
freyr
Inverse square, in free space.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _According to the city, it received 145 pieces of correspondence from
> citizens voicing opposition to the technology, compared to just five letters
> in support of it — a ratio of 29 to 1_

There’s a joke in New York political circles about the technological
ineptitude of our elected governments being virtually guaranteed by the
correlation between technological domain knowledge and political
disengagement.

------
Scaevolus
Shh, don't tell them about Wifi access points!

5G will use frequencies around 3.5-4GHz. Wifi already uses 2.4GHz and
5.2-5.7GHz.

~~~
monocasa
Or that 2.4Ghz is wide open because it's what comes out of microwave ovens.
Spooky scary!

~~~
CyberDildonics
2.4Ghz is not wide open and microwaves are around the 100Ghz range.

~~~
jsjohnst
Not sure what exotic microwave you have, but it’s a very well known fact
microwaves are 2.4ghz. It’s a contributing factor to why that frequency is
part of the ISM band.

~~~
CyberDildonics
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave)

~~~
jsjohnst
See OP, they had _oven_ immediately proceeding the word you solely focused on.

------
alexandercrohde
I'm not sure all the contempt in this thread is remotely productive.

I think the easiest way to persuade people is to engage them in a friendly
way, listen, explain your feelings.

But maybe people on this thread thread don't care about making changes, but
just venting some inarticulate frustration into the void of the internet.

~~~
drfuchs
Turns out that recent studies say you’re wrong. Counter-intuitively, making
rational, fact-based arguments actually makes “them” reject scientific fact
even more strongly. Look it up.

~~~
ItsMe000001
Which is why you decided to leave out any details?

Given the quality of the average study I'm not going to drop my arguments for
the yelling. "There is a study" means little or even nothing at all.

Also, I think I read about what you mean and I think you are misinterpreting
it. Of course in the end human life is all about emotions and what controls
inside your brain what evidence is accepted naturally is quite complex or we
would not have that "old scientists need to die" meme, but it does not mean at
all that arguments don't ever work.

The problem with the average argument - don't know if adding "especially on
the Internet" is justified or if it's actually not much different than the
rest of life - is atrociously bad. I would not be persuaded by most arguments
made to me and I think that this is very rational.

There is more than one side to this. The problem is good arguments take a lot
of effort and time - and it's an iterative process. It needs someone to take
somebody else seriously, mostly to be able to "read" the other person, what
their issue actually is. Very often it isn't what somebody says. The brain
puts thoughts into words not like a computer, where what you get on the
outside is a correct representation of internal state. Instead, human speech
is itself an iterative process and develops dynamically. For example, it may
very well be that what somebody really needs is somebody they feel they can
trust, rather than that they need the actual details. Even worse, while you
say things, if you really put effort into it, _what_ you think may very well
change too!

That lack of trust is an issue for very good reasons in large parts of our
society is a fact, unfortunately. I think the discussion is full of "barking
at the wrong tree". Yes, I think technical arguments won't help because
underneath there is a severe lack of trust in authorities, medical, technical,
administrative. Which quite frankly I don't find irrational.

I think arguing about frequencies and what they do is like trying to treat the
skin problems of a severe disease instead of the underlying cause. Of course,
it is much - MUCH - harder to get at that underlying cause, which is way to
obig and hard to get at, far easier to go after the symptoms. Because to
really treat such issues deeply would mean big changes to our society.

By the way, it is not true that radio frequencies can't cause cancer at all
(and that we are certain of this knowledge), as I read in some comments here.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722)
Yes that's very specific and extreme, they were right under the radar for much
of their life. I read it first in the context of German Bundeswehr radar
technicians (example: [https://www.dw.com/en/german-army-cancer-victims-sue-
us-rada...](https://www.dw.com/en/german-army-cancer-victims-sue-us-radar-
firms/a-1098125)). Also: [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/radio-frequency-
radiatio...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/radio-frequency-radiation-
may-cause-cancer-israeli-study-suggests-1.5918197)

------
jiveturkey
some local context: marin is the anti-vax capital.

------
dmode
Gosh Baby Boomers. Spends all day in Nextdoor and City council meetings and
comes with ridiculous proposals like banning 5g or stopping housing projects.
City councils are also extremely responsive to their bogus movements, like
preserving neighborhood character.

------
pella
(theguardian)"The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones"

 _" We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health – but is that
because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the
industry?"_

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-
ph...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-
cancer-inconvenient-truths)

~~~
dekhn
I suggest not reading the guardian when it comes to anything related to health
and tech. They are not reliable.

------
mc32
From the article: “Reduced radiation emissions from 5G antennas compared to 4G
antennas would presumably further reduce any health effects of this
technology.”

So, they ban a technology which reduces the radiation they are concerned about
while leaving a technology which radiates more than the tech which was going
to replace it with.

Because 1% of the residents decided to chime in and offer their advice...

From the same people who also have lower vaccination rates for their children
than average...

~~~
noobermin
The fact that 1% moved the needle shows how powerful and easy it is for a
motivated group to affect local politics.

~~~
briandear
It also shows how easy it would be to win an election — if anyone with sense
would bother to run.

------
listic
How come they did allow 4G and earlier cellular network technology before
that, then?

------
MR4D
Ironically, both the left-wing conspiracy theorists and the right-wing
conspiracy theorists seem to support this idea.

Here’s one example on the other side of the political divide:

    
    
        https://www.infowars.com/you-have-been-warned-electromagnetic-5g-cell-phone-radiation-is-designed-to-decimate-the-population/
    
    

I can’t remember a topic that both extremes agreed upon. Interesting that this
is one.

------
Bucephalus355
Doesn’t California also require Starbucks to display “this may cause cancer”
on its cups?

~~~
spacehome
The difference is that coffee will actually very minutely increase your risk
of certain cancers (and reduce your risk of others). Microwave radiation on
the other hand won't.

~~~
gruez
not just coffee, any "hot beverage more than 65℃".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens)

~~~
r00fus
You telling me the Mormons had the right of it?

------
resters
T-Mobile 4G and 2G service in Mill Valley is pretty spotty as it is.

~~~
Asparagirl
Yes, and AT&T too. It's non-existent at my house in Tam Valley (unincorporated
Marin county but Mill Valley post office and school district), except for the
extreme back corner of my garden.

More worryingly, basic cellphone coverage is not even available at some of the
Mill Valley elementary schools. When there was an active shooter situation
earlier this year at an apartment complex near one school, there was no way to
call most people at the school to check on them or to let them know.

------
almost_usual
Marin Country?

------
vamos_davai
There's a belief that high powered wireless signals may cause DNA damage,
especially to sperm.

[https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-
link...](https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-links-autism-
epigenetic-changes-dads%E2%80%99-sperm)

~~~
vamos_davai
From a direct study:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074720/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074720/)

------
newnewpdro
Can you blame them? If they don't particularly value having the service, and
have been informed of [0], of course they don't want this in their backyard.

Does Mill Valley already have 4G coverage, or have they stayed completely
dark? If it's the latter, I can at least empathize. If it's the former, then
the objection seems at least a bit misguided considering this should reduce
the power levels relative to 4G.

[0]
[https://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/9890/2017-12-14/calif-...](https://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/9890/2017-12-14/calif-
health-dept-warns-cellphone-use.html)

~~~
inferiorhuman
Mill Valley has LTE, but there are black holes (e.g. Tam Valley).

~~~
newnewpdro
In a black hole I can at least see why people might want to keep it that way.

Where there's already LTE, not so much.

