ghost751

3 jaar geledendiscuss

> As long as ordinary crypto does not get deprecated.

On that note, just this month Tutanota emailed customers that their Secure Connect product is being turned off at the end of next month in order to focus developers on quantum-secure encryption solutions.

This occurs in a time when there appear to be a stark few hosted E2EE webform-submission options that don't involve either a) bigtech or b) fly-by-night operations. Tutanota was a happy medium, and is getting out of that market, apparently.

It can make one wonder what kind of pressure might exist to turn off a quite good, working solution to an actual problem. If one didn't know better, it could seem that blaming the need for quantum is just a distraction.

The GP is not the first to make the observation in a natural line of inquiry. HN guidelines ask to assume good faith, and surely we know to try to.

ghost751

3 jaar geledendiscuss

There are two main positions in 2023. The first one is the predominant one on HN, but the other one exists, too.

One position says: no, it is not a concern, because it is non-ionizing radiation. You only need to be concerned about the localized heating effect, which is measured by the enforced SAR standards. Case in point, when I worked in bigtech, the fertility class at work suggested not keeping a cell phone in your pocket as a male if you were trying to have a baby. I assume they were thinking about the potential for localized heating effects, and the careful balance of temperature for the reproduction capability. This position--held by the non-ionizing and local-heating-only proponents--has all kinds of bold and legit statements that make it sound ludicrous to even question the matter ("how much the sun radiates", "how much higher frequencies other things put out", the "total lack of science to the contrary, show me one study", etc.) These people say that we have had cell phones for decades and we would clearly know if there were a problem by now. This side says that any RF-alarmists don't know what they are talking about (and in a lot of cases this may be true, but that doesn't mean all, though).

The other position says: yes, there is abundant evidence, but it is not promoted (in industry, in university, in government), because that would have all kind of implications for stakeholders. Heck, one could be a verifiable expert in radio engineering and not have had any exposure to the serious study of its biological effects other than "it's non-ionizing, it's safe". And yet the people who maintain cell towers need to wear exposure meters for safety. This position says, parts of Eastern Europe have strict laws for EM radiation in government buildings, which have nothing to do with SAR and are founded on research going back many decades. This position says, the recent decade-long multi-million dollar US government "national technology program" (NTP) study found indeed serious implications for cell phones and health outcomes. These people say, we have all kinds of health issues in greater quantities than before such big man-made rollouts, from insomnia and anxiety to cancers to whatever, and it is hard to always pin down, because of blanketed and long-term effects without good control groups.

But one might say, those older phones were different. But the newer ones are different, too. The point is, all one has to do is look at the scientific studies. Are there great studies on biological effects when new cell phone EM frequency usages roll out? IDK, but they couldn't be very long-term or on very large populations of humans. But there are allegedly declassified animal studies on the effects of all kinds of frequencies, well-known to Eastern and Western countries since the cold war.

Power level may be a concern, too, but frequency (and the use of step-functions instead of smooth curves) might be a concern, too. When there are cancer clusters near areas with large antennas or in the "line of sight" of directed beams and such, it kind of gets swept under the rug right? It doesn't take much wondering to figure out why that is.

I know this may sound like a silly answer, but I think that's the rough outline of the positions in 2023 as asked.

If there is a meta-analysis that gives a serious treatment of both major positions, that would be interesting to read.

You don't need a link for the mainstream view probably, since you can turn to Wikipedia or Youtube. But some fairly recent links to read about the concerned view are below:

  - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats
  - https://icbe-emf.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ICBE-EMF-paper-12940_2022_900_OnlinePDF_Patched-1.pdf
  - https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/NTP-Rodent-Study-on-Cell-Phones.pdf
  - https://mdsafetech.org/ntp-study-2016/

A related question would be how to have the conversation, when the outcome might be perversely aligned with other incentives. Discouraging the conversation is probably what leads to fear and lack of education on the matter. So, let's point out the most alarming-looking studies (if any), and say plain and simple why their findings are invalid.

Have you looked in depth at the reports, or are you asking the audience for the consensus? I'm not sure there's a unanimous consensus, but (guessing) 99.9% of people you ask do not worry about it, but some might "know" to use speakerphone instead of holding it to their head all day long, or "know" not to wear it in their bra all day long like people used to.

ghost751

3 jaar geledendiscuss

[dead]

ghost751

3 jaar geledendiscuss

The first chart in the Pew article makes it seem not so bad.

- The yellow line seems to show that, while average hourly wages in current dollars have gone up linearly over time since the mid-1960s, and that may look basically like a good thing, this could be all attributable to inflation. This could sound scary I guess because of inflation, but then we turn to the green line.

- The green line shows that average hourly wages in current dollars have been basically flat since the mid-1960s. So, while inflation exists, basically the earning looks the same, numerically, if we adjust for it.

The mid-1960s is an interesting place to start the plot. It shows sort of the opposite of what I had expected to see, having seen the topic popularly treated on the web before. I clicked to see if the article discussed the graphic at the top of [0] in which:

- it appears that linear compensation growth tracked with linear productivity growth from 1948 to 1972 and

- after 1972, productivity began growing linearly, but compensation became (and remained) flat.

I'm not sure if the Pew author was making trying to make the topic more original or more palatable, but the author seems to be alluding to the same topic without pointing out the potentially helpful graphic for the related but different dataset.

This makes me wonder what the chart in the OP would look like if it went back further. Nonetheless, the points in the comment [1] appear to apply to [0] as well.

I think the answer to the question posed by the domain name at [0] might help answer the question in the OP. Do the additional charts help?

[0] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37481844

ghost751

4 jaar geledendiscuss

>> I am wondering what the truth really is.

If you really want to know, check out https://www.VirusTruth.NET (obviously verifying everything for yourself, just a starting point).

>> Nature or lab leak.

These two options present a possibly false dichotomy. There is a strong argument that neither nature nor lab leak is correct.

Anyone of average intelligence can learn to read the virology papers and looking at the fundamental published science. The conclusion rational agents have to draw may be surprising at first, but is not so surprising in context. And it's actually really good news.

Submissions

[untitled]

comments