Switzerland halts rollout of 5G over health concerns - Update: Swiss gov't denies the report

[Bramimond]

6 hours ago, Donut417 said:

By this logic we should ban all radio communication. You do know there are "Tin Foil Hat" people who claim they are senstive to radio waves.

No, I don't. I don't hang out with crazies. You think Switzerland is a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic? It's not, it's a country.

 

6 hours ago, Curious Pineapple said:

So you're one of those that advocates against something you have zero understanding of?

If I don't understand it and having it doesn't improve my life, while not having it doesn't affect me whatsoever, I advocate against it if there seems to be a chance that it's bad, yes. Call me crazy, but I like to err on the side of caution.

 

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Going by this logic, we may have to ban literally everything. You can accuse anything of being unsafe, and it's ultimately impossible to prove a negative. It's even worse when you aren't even talking about evidence, but just whether there's a discussion - because people can argue stuff even if it's been disproven.

No, we don't. Only the stuff that doesn't outweigh the concerns with benefits. Nuclear power plants, especially the waste they produce is kinda a concern. But the benefits outweigh those concerns. What you have to argue isn't that it's safe, but that it is useful enough. I see zero benefit in 5G and some uncertainty towards its safety, so it's an easy choice.

 

6 hours ago, Lurick said:

So basically we should halt any and all technological advancements because people don't want to try and understand them because it's "new and spooky"?

No, try new stuff all you want, but before you push to prod, you better have made sure that it doesn't break anything. Also, you better make sure that what you push is actually a useful feature or a bugfix and not some inane bullshit nobody asked for.

 

5 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

You let the qualified people handle that.

Sure, but so far 5G is banned in Israel and I'm reading a headline that rollout is halted in Switzerland, so I'm guessing some educated people were involved in those decisions and there's actual cause for concern.

 

 

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Encryption can't protect you from a man-in-the-middle attack, and a simple DNS spoofing is enough to trick 99.99% of the population into that.

Well yes, but baking a backdoor into the base stations seems like a bit too much effort for a MITM. And while encryption can't protect you on its own, certificates definitely can. Besides, with a MITM the cat would be out of the bag in a matter of hours - not the smartest idea if you're trying to gather lots of data from a foreign country without being noticed.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

 

 

If I don't understand it and having it doesn't improve my life, while not having it doesn't affect me whatsoever, I advocate against it if there seems to be a chance that it's bad, yes. Call me crazy, but I like to err on the side of caution.

 

 

So because you are scared of something you don't understand, everyone else has to suffer technological stagnation? 5G is necessary moving forward for all mobile communications.  Without it we will all start suffering congestion and slow unstable mobile networks.

[Kilrah]

That's what they say, and while I'm a tech enthusiast we're at the point where I don't believe this anymore either.

 

Everyone already has a mobile phone, everybody is already transferring photos, videos etc daily, watching youtube/netflix/whatever while commuting and 4G handles that well.

Since everyone already does that there won't be more people to service in the foreseeable future. There isn't any application that's going to need more on the horizon either, so nothing to further congest networks in the near future in a way that 4G can't handle. 

 

I'm way more in favor of continuing to improve 4G coverage instead of starting over with 5G which will again take half a decade to cover any meaningful area decently, and will of course start by again covering the areas that don't need it since they already have perfect 4G coverage, not those that don't...

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Since everyone already does that there won't be more people to service in the foreseeable future

Wrong ish. 5G is promissing to replace home internet. For some of us thats kinda a blessing as some people have eaither shitty choices or only have one choice for ISP's. For example in my area we only have Comcast. If I could get a decent 5G internet plan I would at least have another choice. As 4G in my area is about 25 Mbps which is not enough for my household. 

[Kilrah]

Sure, but networks will do what networks do, and it's unlikely an area like yours is gonna get 5G coverage before many years... As usual they'll first cover the areas with most people so that they can quickly claim their "percentage of population covered" numbers, who already have no shortage of options. They could improve their 4G coverage of your area for much cheaper instead.

[Donut417]

Just now, Kilrah said:

Sure, but networks will do what networks do, and it's unlikely an area like yours is gonna get 5G coverage before many years... As usual they'll first cover the areas with most people, who already have no shortage of options.

I live in a pretty decent Metro area. So Id figure we are a bit higher on the list. 

[divito]

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Yes, you did strongly imply something, and now you're doubling down on it.

 

There is no evidence that 5G is carcinogenic in humans to any real extent. Yes, more research needs to be done, but that doesn't mean there's evidence it's carcinogenic, just that we'd like to have more evidence that it isn't.

 

5G doesn't need time to not have evidence, that's putting things backwards. The moment something is invented, you lack evidence about whether or not it's harmful. Evidence (one way or the other, or both) accumulates as you study it. The only caveat here is 5G is a subtype of radio communication, which has already been studied for many decades... with zero evidence of carcinogenicity (outside of thermal effects, which are irrelevant to real-world 5G).

 

Being classified as a class 2B carcinogen is essentially meaningless. As the Vox article mentions, other class 2B carcinogens are "pickles, aloe vera, and being a carpenter."

 

You're misrepresenting the science to spread FUD.

I'm parroting what the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute via the National Institutes of Health, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer say on their websites. I do not see how those organizations are misrepresenting the science behind it; they actually list many of the studies and their results. 

The NIH study that was actually linked on another page and quoted in my previous post goes over as much of the issues, and that they do see reactions, hence  “[Our results] go against the notion that non-ionizing radiation is completely harmless.”.

They are the authorities and all acknowledge that there is conflicting research and understudied areas that need to be given more focus to actually see the mechanisms. I will trust their information more than LTT forum-goers.

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

There are still people who think keeping a cell phone in your pocket will give you testicular cancer....

 

Realisticly, there's only two places you should not have your cell phone. Inside your underwear (front pocket), and on top of your heart (eg a breast pocket), and that's more about not causing the thing to break in an inconvenient area. People who put phones in their back pockets are in fact damaging their tailbone, not because of anything the cell phone is doing, but because of how the phone puts pressure on your pants. Putting it above your heart, might interfere with a pacemaker if you have one, otherwise, it's just a bad place for a fire risk.

 

If you have to carry your cell phone around, the best place is in a coat pocket at the waist, or another bag, kept at the waist. If you put the cell phone in your jeans/pants, you're asking for it to be broken by other objects in the pocket, and should you have an accident while it's in your pocket (eg the phone falls out and into the toilet, or someone spills coffee on you) the phone is going to be damaged.

 

It has nothing to do with radiation risk.

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Realisticly, there's only two places you should not have your cell phone. Inside your underwear (front pocket), and on top of your heart (eg a breast pocket), and that's more about not causing the thing to break in an inconvenient area. People who put phones in their back pockets are in fact damaging their tailbone, not because of anything the cell phone is doing, but because of how the phone puts pressure on your pants. Putting it above your heart, might interfere with a pacemaker if you have one, otherwise, it's just a bad place for a fire risk.

 

If you have to carry your cell phone around, the best place is in a coat pocket at the waist, or another bag, kept at the waist. If you put the cell phone in your jeans/pants, you're asking for it to be broken by other objects in the pocket, and should you have an accident while it's in your pocket (eg the phone falls out and into the toilet, or someone spills coffee on you) the phone is going to be damaged.

 

It has nothing to do with radiation risk.

My phone usually stays in my front pocket. Never had any issues. Tbh I cant think of anything else I would put in my front pocket that would break it.

[SkilledRebuilds]

5 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

My phone usually stays in my front pocket. Never had any issues. Tbh I cant think of anything else I would put in my front pocket that would break it.

Ive leg pocketed my smartphones for years and never scratched or damaged any screens in any way...

 

My Note9 is "old now" but in perfect condition.

No screen protection.

Note8/S8+/Mate9/Nexus6P

None had any issues or damage in the pockets.

 

Admittedly, I dont put things in the pocket with it, I dont usually carry a lot on my person but a wallet, keys on left, and my phone on right, or vise versa.

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

Ive leg pocketed my smartphones for years and never scratched or damaged any screens in any way...

 

My Note9 is "old now" but in perfect condition.

No screen protection.

Note8/S8+/Mate9/Nexus6P

None had any issues or damage in the pockets.

 

Admittedly, I dont put things in the pocket with it, I dont usually carry a lot on my person but a wallet, keys on left, and my phone on right, or vise versa.

Same. I have the note 9 and while theres scratches on the screen you cant see them unless the phones off and in good light. And I have dropped/thrown this phone so many times that I cant say it was from anything in my pocket lol.

[Fnige]

11 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Same. I have the note 9 and while theres scratches on the screen you cant see them unless the phones off and in good light. And I have dropped/thrown this phone so many times that I cant say it was from anything in my pocket lol.

"The cat knocked it off the bench!"

[Sakkura]

16 hours ago, divito said:

I'm parroting what the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute via the National Institutes of Health, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer say on their websites. I do not see how those organizations are misrepresenting the science behind it; they actually list many of the studies and their results. 

The NIH study that was actually linked on another page and quoted in my previous post goes over as much of the issues, and that they do see reactions, hence  “[Our results] go against the notion that non-ionizing radiation is completely harmless.”.

They are the authorities and all acknowledge that there is conflicting research and understudied areas that need to be given more focus to actually see the mechanisms. I will trust their information more than LTT forum-goers.

No, I just explained how your statements disagreed with your sources.

[PocketNerd]

20 hours ago, greenmax said:

Those backdoor hacks would be endorsed by the CIA and internal defense teams on spying on citizens so no concerns would be raised. Only concern is China hence Huawaiiia

"We spy on our own people and no one bats an eye but as soon as someone else spies on our people suddenly we get all uppity!"

[mikegray]

What on earth is this thread about?!

 

I live in Switzerland. Our government has not blocked the implementation of 5g or even seriously discussed doing so.

 

Since the financial times article is behind a paywall, I can't even access it to get a better look at wtf wrote it, and who he thinks he's quoting, but it's simply nonsense. (Among other things, the BAFU just presents reports. It can't make anyone place a moratorium on anything. And while 2-3 of our 26 cantons have placed moratoriums on 5g development, they most definitely do not make federal policy!)

 

I wish I could give you guys a link to disprove the claims, but since no one here has heard anything about any such initiative, there's nothing there. All I can just say that I'm Swiss, I follow the news, and I even asked my daughter and her boyfriend, both Masters students at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, to please check. The claims made in the article quoted are false.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, mikegray said:

What on earth is this thread about?!

 

I live in Switzerland. Our government has not blocked the implementation of 5g or even seriously discussed doing so.

 

Since the financial times article is behind a paywall, I can't even access it to get a better look at wtf wrote it, and who he thinks he's quoting, but it's simply nonsense. (Among other things, the BAFU just presents reports. It can't make anyone place a moratorium on anything. And while 2-3 of our 26 cantons have placed moratoriums on 5g development, they most definitely do not make federal policy!)

 

I wish I could give you guys a link to disprove the claims, but since no one here has heard anything about any such initiative, there's nothing there. All I can just say that I'm Swiss, I follow the news, and I even asked my daughter and her boyfriend, both Masters students at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, to please check. The claims made in the article quoted are false.

Some one earlier said it was all basically BS (like most media articles, they are just jumping on the hype train for clicks), I think the discussion quickly moved on to the research status of health and RF technology.

[Sakkura]

Yeah...

 

Quote

Updated, 2.49pm, 14 February 2020: Since the original publication of the story in the Financial Times, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment has denied plans for a blanket ban on 5G in Switzerland. The agency said it had written to the country’s cantons about the placement of 5G equipment, but the assertion that previous reports had made about halting 5G entirely were “misleading”.

 

While some cantons had imposed restrictions on planning permission for 5G sites, it does not apply to the whole of Switzerland. This article was updated to reflect these comments.

 

[mikegray]

10 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Yeah...

 

 

Weird - I missed that correction completely, and I don't understand how that happened.

 

So long as the OP has ALSO added the correction, that's better - though I would prefer that the thread title also added something like [DEBUNKED].

 

If you or a friend or family member is working in related tech fields, you might be surprised at how easily a stupid piece of fake news like this can effect someone's livelihood - and even intelligent readers can miss a correction lower down in the text. (Apparently, I did, after studying the OP very carefully and forwarding it to two people who ALSO studied it and forwarded it to other people - etc. - all of whim ALSO missed the correction.)