Inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of 5G wireless technology - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html <comment><USER2> I think there is a lot of mis-information floating around here. There are 2 "flavors" of 5G per 3Gpp 1) FR1 which is 5G operating on low/mid band (below 6Ghhz) and 2) FR2 which is 5G operating above 6Ghz

If the sub 6Ghz band, 5G is basically the same as 4G LTE, similar power levers (sometimes lower depending on some technical details beyond the scope I can go into here). But there are some significant technical improvements. A lower TTI, the TTI is the interval in which the modulation and coding schemes can change. In 4G LTE the TTI is 1ms, for 5G it is 100us. Also, the sub channels can effectively be smaller. The benefit here is to capacity. Think about protocols that may have small packet sizes, eg. Votle (voice over LTE, sort of like VOIP) or TCP SYN/ACK messages. If you devote an entire resource block (TTI, ie. time slice and sub-channel allocation) to a small packet you effectively waste a lot of spectrum. These are a few very simple examples of the various improvements that 5G in the sub-6Ghz has. But none of these changes to the protocols have any effect whatsoever on the effective radiation or would change the effects to humans which, in my view has been clearly been shown to be safe.

Now, the FR2 5G which typically operates in the mm-wave bands, for example 28Ghz. All of the above features and more apply, but one very important extra feature of the small wavelength is that it makes it possible to utilize beam forming antenna arrays, specifically Phased Array Antennas or Meta-material antennas. The reason is because the antenna elements (think each antenna element as a sort of RF pixel) has to be spaced 1/2 lambda (wavelength) apart so the physical size in the low bands is simply impractical but at higher frequencies the wavelengths are short enough that these antenna arrays are small (on the order of less than 1 foot square) and can have high gains and narrow beam widths. Now, if you think about this, that means that the beams are narrow (think about it like light, RF and light are both electro-magnetic waves but at different frequencies). This ability to control the beams means that the energy can be much lower. A joke that is often made in the industry is that mm-wave cannot propagate out of a wet paper bag. This is literally true, a wet piece of paper completely stops a mm-wave beam. That means that it cannot get through a pane of glass (or it is severely attenuated) and does not penetrate human skin, much less so than the lower bands. The benefit of the mm-wave is mostly that the antennas can be smaller and there is just a lot more spectrum. The benefit of more spectrum is of course Shannon's law C ~ B*SINR that is, the capacity in bps is proportional to the amount of spectrum B times the Signal to Noise and Interference ratio. So having more spectrum is a big deal.

All of what I am explaining here I am hoping, that the highly intelligent HN readers will understand is that the sub-6Ghz (FR1) 5G is essentially no different from 4GLTE except that there are a number of protocol and other improvements that increase capacity. In fact, the radios are the same in many cases and it is simply a software upgrade (many of these radios are essentially SDR's).

The mm-wave (FR2) is what is really radically different from traditional 4GLTE (although, it has been used for other wireless use cases for a long time such as LMDS, but that is another long story, in fact, much of the mm-wave spectrum comes from older LMDS applications). But newer technologies such as PAA (phased array antennas, borrowed from DoD military) offer significant increases in capacity and bandwidth at much lower and safer energy levels than previously possible from FR1 systems.

I know this is a very long post, but this is a very high level overview of the 5G technology. There are many other aspects and exciting new applications that are far beyond the scope that could be covered here. The most important issue in my view is that the fears and the propaganda that 5G has some sort of health related issues is founded in ignorance of the physics of the technology IMHO.

<comment><USER3> You're saying that the higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin. So this means that the human skin (and I assume at least a couple of layers of body under the skin) effectively absorbs all the energy of the signal that reaches it. This is one of the main concerns.

You're saying that signals are going to be phased and directional, but for example if you are using a cell phone or even a laptop, that phased signal will be directed at that human and at their body. This means that all of the energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions (and only a small portion of it was hitting the human skin) - is now concentrated in that beam, with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? How is this not a health concern?

From what I understant there have been no huge human studies on this. The higher frequencies actually might have other properties than lower ones, and just because we assume that 4G and lower bands of 5G are completely safe, the further study of the higher frequencies is surely needed. What is more alarming is the rate at which many of the countries (and hardware companies making billions on this rollout and thus pushing and lobbying for a faster one) are trying to implement 5G. Shouldn't we be careul about it and implement this untested(!) technology in small areas first?

<comment><USER4> > higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin

True

> this means that the human skin effectively absorbs all the energy that > reaches it

False. Most power is reflected directly off the skin. The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect.

> energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions is now concentrated in > that beam

True

> with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin?

Nope.

> no huge human studies on this

True

> higher frequencies [..] have other properties than lower ones

True

> further study of the higher frequencies is [..] needed

Agree, depending on what you want to study.

> Shouldn't we be careful about [..] this untested(!) technology

It is _not_ accurate to say that it is untested. There have been many investigations in the frequency ranges required for 5G and none have shown any negative health effects, nor is there a proposed mechanism for which this should occur. I gave some details in another post [1].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974)

<comment><USER3> > The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to > warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible > effect.

Alright thank you, if that is the case, sounds like physics-wise we should be relatively safe. If you have any other links to actual studies besides what is in that post, please link them!

<comment><USER4> Since I cannot edit my other posts anymore, I thought I'd leave some references here for those that are interesting in reading.

[1] High-level overview. The applications are somewhat outdated w.r.t. 5G (2003)

[2] Literature review of possible causes of harm from non-ionizing radiation

[3] Further review of biological effects

[4] "RF Energy Absorption by Biological Tissues in Close Proximity to Millimeter-Wave 5G Wireless Equipment"

[5] "Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications"

[1, PDF] [http://126.96.36.199:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standard...](http://18.104.22.168:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standards/keynote5dawoud.pdf)

[2] [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/00...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/001/meta)

[3] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978)

[4] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8247178](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8247178)

[5] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7032050](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7032050)

<comment><USER5> Thank you itcrowd, I am quite interested to see these studies on 5G that I did not know existed until now.

I just had a look at [4]; the authors are Davide Colombi "Since 2009, he has been with Ericsson Research, Stockholm, Sweden, where he has been involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment."

Björn Thors "Since 2005, he has been with Ericsson Research, where he is currently a Senior Specialist, involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure assessment of wireless equipment."

Christer Törnevik "He joined Ericsson in 1991, and has, since 1993, been involved in research activities related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment. He is currently a Senior Expert with Ericsson Research and is responsible for electromagnetic fields and health within the Ericsson Group."

And Quirino Balzano No listed affiliation with Ericsson, but "His group was essential in the development of the cell phone technology."

Hmmm....

As a thought experiment: can anyone imagine these three authors, employed by Ericsson (the prominent wireless company), conceivably publishing a paper showing that wireless technology has adverse health effects?

Regarding [5] the authors are:

Theodore S. (Ted) Rappaport "His Ph.D. study provided fundamental knowledge of indoor wireless channels and was used to create the first Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11)... He co-founded the Virginia Tech Summer School and Wireless Symposium, in 1991, the Texas Wireless Summit, in 2003, and the Brooklyn 5G Summit (B5GS), in 2014...He is the Founder and the Director of NYU WIRELESS, a multidisciplinary research center focused on the future of wireless communications and applications. He conducted fundamental work that led to the first U.S. Digital cellphone standards, TDMA IS-54/IS-136 and CDMA IS-95. He and his students engineered the world's first public Wi-Fi hotspots, and more recently, his work proved the viability of millimeter waves for mobile communications. The global wireless industry adopted his vision for fifth- generation (5G) cellphone networks." So he is one of the "creators" of wireless, as it were. It would be rather surprising if he were to publish findings about negative health effects of his "brainchild."

Ting Wu Affiliation NYU WIRELESS Brooklyn NY 11201, USA (Rappaport's company)

and Christopher M. Collins (no immediately apparent conflict of interest)

In addition, the title ("Safe for Generations to Come") would be, for me, a clear "red flag."

Regarding [3] the authors are

Ronald C. Petersen "Until his retirement in July 2001, he managed the Wireless and Optical Technologies Safety Department (WOTS), which serves as the Lucent Technologies Inc. resource for all nonionizing radiation matters and as a resource for Lucent wireless customers on RF safety and FCC compliance issues."

and

Eleanor R. Adair (no immediately apparent conflicts of interest)

Independently of the authors' conflicts of interest, it would be necessary to know the source of the funding for each of these research papers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, industry-funded and independently-funded studies yield quite different results. The quote from the Guarian article is worth repeating here:

"When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai's findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."

[1] and [2] do not relate to 5G. Regarding pre-5G radio frequency technologies, it has already been established that the majority of (independent) studies show these technologies to have adverse health effects. To quote again from the recently-mentioned article in The Lancet:

"A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation."

So after having a look at the three articles cited above that relate to 5G, I must revise what I said earlier ("No studies on 5G have been done"). In fact, it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done.

<comment><USER4> I've addressed the Lancet Planetary Health study here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20457998](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20457998)

The Guardian article cites Henry Lai, but I could not find his paper (was it published at all?). It also cites _Environmental Health Perspectives_ [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/)

They reviewed not 326 but only 59 studies with 12 funded fully by industry. The statistical power is much lower, although I agree with you that there is a worrying trend that should be properly investigated.

Additionally, the potential conflict of interest you mention in the papers is interesting. I didn't go fully into their backgrounds as you did, which is interesting. I would be hesitant to conclude "it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done" because my list of references is very non- exhaustive and only the result of a cursory Google Scholar search.

Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful. I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.

<comment><USER5> Thank you itcrowd for your comments and your sincere and balanced approach, which I respect even though I do not at present share your viewpoint. Thank you also for looking into the Lancet and Guardian articles. Regarding the respectability of this subjournal of Lancet, that is useful information. Regarding the Guardian article: after a very brief search, I have also not been able to locate the actual academic article, though there are many references to it in other general-interest articles on the internet. The 326 number referred to Lai's study; the 59 studies refer to the separate article from Environmental Health Perspectives that you link to.

I have been following this topic for some time and in everything I have read, I have (until today) never encountered a single reference to a study on the health effects of 5G (and have encountered many statements that 5G has not yet been studied for health effects), thus my initial assertion that there haven't been any studies. What I have encountered is many government and industry spokespeople and mainstream media outlets saying that 5G is safe, without ever citing a single study to support their claim. The few studies that turned up in your brief Google Scholar search are problematic, as I pointed out, due to conflicts of interest.

Regarding your last paragraph (I will comment in two parts):

> Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have > provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) > are not harmful.

I don't want to seem uncivil, but I think I missed this evidence? Thus far we have found three studies that address possible health effects from 5G, all of which have problems with conflicts of interest, correct? If there have been no other studies directly testing 5G, what is the scientific evidence (not theorizing, but actual empirical studies) that has been provided?

And:

> I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that > provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the > level of harm this mechanism should have on users.

Firstly, not a single scientific paper has been posted because there haven't been any, yes? (setting aside the 3 we spoke of above). One of the essential points here is that this simply hasn't been studied (apart from the aforementioned problematic studies, unless there are others that we have not found, and that the various parties assuring the public that 5G is safe are likely also unaware of given that they have never cited them either), and the technology is being deployed anyway.

Regarding our ignorance of a "mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it": I would tend to place more trust in empirical studies -- what actually happens, are any effects produced? In terms of understanding the mechanism of how it happens, scientists may not have discovered this yet. A current gap in our knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the natural world does not mean that those mechanisms, and the effects that they produce, do not exist. In the meantime (i.e. before we discover the mechanisms), it seems imperative that the empirical effects are determined.

<comment><USER4> Thanks danielst for the kind words. Huge respect for your civil responses.

That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to somewhat revise my stance.

First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!):

1\. 5G does not have ionizing radiation

2\. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very accessible article from 2000 [1].

3\. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem.

Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry- affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public funding) or mixed funding (public + private money).

Now, what I think we don't agree on:

4\. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced / suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before widespread 5G rollout.

This is where it gets complicated. First, I did a PubMed search for 5g+safety ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AN...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=\(5g%5BTitle%5D\)+AND+safety%5BTitle%5D)) and it turns up 3 relevant articles [2], [3] and [4] (one search result is unrelated to 5G).

Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research.

Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect).

Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses.

We need to look further.

I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore). According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and cannot be considered neutral. (See: [https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/](https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/) and [https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy- russellmd/](https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/))

That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation levels).

The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G _may_ have some other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time.

I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]:

> In the respect of the WHO principle "health in all policies", the > development of new RF-EMF communication networks should be paralleled by > adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the > field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure limits > and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population.

> On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms > linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current > clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to > the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk(Wu et > al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable > diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017).

[1] Ryan et. al, 2000, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION OF MILLIMETER WAVE LENGTH: POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATING TO SURFACE HEATING, [https://journals.lww.com/health- physics/pages/articleviewer....](https://journals.lww.com/health- physics/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=02000&article=00006&type=abstract)

[2] McClelland, 2018, The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534)

[3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time- Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338)

[4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, [https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642](https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642)

[5] Di Ciaula, Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?, 2018, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846391...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub)

[6] Russel, CL, 2018, 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646)

[7] In an interview in Italian he said the following:

The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions. ([https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi- elettromagnetici-e-...](https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi- elettromagnetici-e-5g-intervista-al-dottor-agostino-di-ciaula/) and Google translate)

<comment><USER6> This is what HN is all about for me. Great conversation and great info :)

<comment><USER5> Yes, I am also really appreciating this forum (which I just discovered) where people can have truly thoughtful and intelligent exchanges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The reason that this is absurd is that there's this popular notion that 5G is fundamentally new technology. The reality is that it is literally just radio. You know, like "the wireless" from 1905, which is the same fundamental thing as 4G, 3G, 2G, LTE, Analog, WiFi, radar, satellite, and a bazillion other things that have repeatedly and conclusively been shown to not cause harm at typical power levels. Sure, a kilowatt microwave emitter will literally cook you, but yeah... so will a gas fire! Don't put your hand in the fire you idiot and you'll be fine. Get a grip.

Meanwhile there's people frothing at the mouth and endlessly repeating "We just don't know! It could be dangerous!" is equally daft. A little-known German scientist called Einstein won a Nobel prize back in 1921 for showing that wavelengths longer than a certain cut-off (typically in the UV light range) simply do not cause ionisation, irrespective of power levels. Radio simply cannot give you cancer. It's been proven. We understand the physics. It's been tested to death.

Stop. Saying. We. Don't. know. It's YOU that doesn't know, because you're apparently blithely unaware of the last century of human progress. Catch up to the rest of us.

Meanwhile the real risk of cell phones is idiots texting and driving. That KILLS and MAIMS people. I bet 90% of the people arguing against 5G technology have done that at least a few times...

<comment><USER8> >Radio simply cannot give you cancer. It's been proven. We understand the physics. It's been tested to death.

Actually, high exposure to radio sources (2G and 3G) have recently been found to cause cancer in male rats. It's unclear yet whether this effect carries over to humans.

[https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/11/feature/1-feature- radia...](https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/11/feature/1-feature- radiation/index.htm)

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the study is widely criticized. Ars Technica gave a nice breakdown of it here: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/draft-of-us- governme...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/draft-of-us-government- cell-phone-safety-study-backtracks-on-earlier-claims/)

> To sum up the findings: a bunch of cancers that aren't statistically > different from those found in the control group; a high-fatality control > group; an elevated incidence of a single type of cancer, only in males, at > exposures that are well above any that a human should experience.

<comment><USER8> To be fair, that's just one guy on a tech blog viewing a early draft of the findings. Here's a result of the peer review of the findings by a panel of experts:

[https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/a...](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/actions20180328_508.pdf)

>Panel 2 voted to recommend (8yes, 3no, 0 abstentions) the conclusion, clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of male Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats based on incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've never seen an issue with seemingly respectable sources making such strong conflicting claims on both sides. I've definitely seen multiple sources on here from people with seemingly more technical backgrounds than this author saying this is definitely something to worry about. I have no idea what to believe here.

<comment><USER10> Last time I got into a discussion on Facebook about 5G someone ended up responding with this article:

[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196\(18\)30221-3/fulltext)

The Lancet, from what I understand, is a pretty respectable journal and now I'm not sure what to make of the issue. Most of the anti-5G videos share a lot in common with antivax conspiracy theory stuff but this article seems well cited. I'm still a skeptic but wasn't sure how to respond.

<comment><USER11> From the journal that published Dr. Andrew Wakefield research on Autism and MMR?

I would hope it's improved, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

<comment><USER3> If there is any opinion about Lancet, regarding to the Wakefield story that you should get - is that you should hold Lancet in a higher regard, not lower - they retracted the study!

The study was published with fraudulent data which Lancet could not check immediately. In such a an environment a good scientific journal should publish the study regardless of how outrageous the title sounds. There are scientific truths that come out all the time that first sound outlandish. If the journals would only publish the studies which support the status quo in their area, we would never have any real vertical progress only small horizointal improvements.

Then, when it was actually shown by a due process that the Wakefield study was fraudulent - the Lancet, again, as any respectable scientific journal should, retracted the study and published the retraction. This is exactly how the scientific process should work.

So in other words, don't dicourage some study just because you don't like the outcome. Keep checking it further using the scientific method and due process, review, replication etc. If actually shows to be false, random or fraudulent - then retract it.

You should be happy there are journals like Lancet, not be more suspicious of it. That's how science works best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As mentioned in this article, Russia is pushing this information as part of their propaganda directed towards the west.

[https://euvsdisinfo.eu/figure-of-the-week-5g/](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/figure- of-the-week-5g/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone- safety-h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety- health-russia.html)

<comment><USER13> Sometimes I think Russia has my best interests at heart more than the USA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised that this article doesn't talk about a real, scientific, threat about 5G: that it occupies the same frequency spectrum as water vapor, affecting how accurate satellites that track clouds and water in the atmosphere can be.

Given that these satellites have contributed significantly to how much more accurate weather forecasts have gotten in the past 10 years, being unable to predict storms could arguably have a significant human health impact (ie. not being able to announce evacuations, sending aid to the right regions, etc)

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01305-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01305-4)

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-5g-wireles...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-5g-wireless- networks-threaten-weather-forecasts/)

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/5g-networks- will...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/5g-networks-will-likely- interfere-with-us-weather-satellites-navy-warns/)

<comment><USER15> "Surprised?"

I'm sincerely curious. Based on all of your experiences with how tech journalism covers tech, why are you surprised that this article doesn't address an issue unrelated to health?

I am not trolling or attacking personally- I am sincere: I'm super interested in understanding how divorced from other people's perspective I am. I think this journalist was tasked with writing a story about how the health fears for 5g have not planned out in any reproducible study. It is obvious to me that there are powerful economic forces on both sides of this issue, and it is poisoning reporting. It seems outrageously obvious that talking about weather is not going to be addressed in this article

<comment><USER16> Feigning surprise is a rhetorical device, and a useful one. I'm surprised that more people didn't know about this.

<comment><USER15> When @dang has a history of claiming legitimate questions are a personal attack, it bears some context.

<comment><USER17> When people make these claims, they never supply links. What's an example of "claiming legitimate questions are a personal attack"?

<comment><USER15> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289975](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289975)

<comment><USER17> "You are out of touch", "Labeling people that you don't understand", "get out of your bubble", "You are deluding yourself", and "tossing a mr. yuck sticker on people you don't understand" are all examples of personal swipes.

<comment><USER15> There is a huge difference between calling someone an asshole and calling out shitty behavior.

If you can't call bad behavior bad, then what is the value of your ethics? There is right and wrong- but you can call it out without demeaning people.

I don't have any shame for this and I think you are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've often heard people say that we know that these radio waves are 100% safe because the heating effects of non-ionizing radiation at these doses is not a significant risk.

However, the article itself mentions that "novel EHF [medical] therapies" use only slightly higher (and also "non-ionizing") radio frequencies.

Per the Wikipedia article on EHF therapies, this seemingly similar radiation appears to have studied, proven biological effect: "Low intensity (usually 10 mW/cm2 or less) electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency may be used in human medicine for the treatment of diseases. For example, 'A brief, low-intensity MMW exposure can change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors.'[14] This treatment is particularly associated with the range of 40 – 70 GHz.[15]"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency#Medic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency#Medicine)

Can someone explain to me how we are so confident 5G is safe, if similar, 40-70 GHz radiation at 10mW/cm2 has been shown to "change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors"?

Why shouldn't there be risk of similar effect at slightly lower frequencies and somewhat lower power?

(To be clear, I believe 5G to be safe with very high probability. But I wish I better knew how to reconcile this information and explain it to others who are much more skeptical.)

<comment><USER19> This is my go to reference.

[https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes- prevention/risk/r...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes- prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet)

<comment><USER20> 1) The money quote from your link is:

"The [WHO] Working Group classified cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic to humans, ..."

2) You're gonna love this ... phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.

So we're a long way from proving phones are safe.

You would even be excused if you thought there was a conspiracy to cover up the risk, because nobody is trying very hard to test them as commonly used - against the ear or in your pocket next to your skin for 16 hours a day.

<comment><USER21> > phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In > other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.

In most modern phones the antenna is at the bottom (or at the very least the iPhone and Samsung Galaxy line - but I think also most other). That's a few inches from the ear.

I was a bit surprised to learn this and now keep my phone right-side-up in my pocket, to keep the EM radiation source away from the balls.

<comment><USER22> Apple also tests at 5mm separation ([https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone11,2/en/](https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone11,2/en/)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It is unfortunate that the NYT is confusing 5G, which is a certain version (15?) of the LTE advanced specification, with the use of millimeter wave frequencies. Here in the U.S. at least one major carrier is deploying 5G on frequencies below 1 GHz.

<comment><USER24> As someone who currently works in wireless comms I think we can say "5G" is a pretty meaningless term. I presume, as you suggest, it originally referred to the new LTE but honestly the definition "literally any wireless tech created between about 2015 and about 2020" seems to be universally accepted!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I suspect that the health concerns are FUD to prevent conversation about the real problem — WTF is this poorly propagating technology for?

Answer is easy — kill cable, and move us all to more profitable, metered wireless services.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is PR from the 5G networks. There have been groups of scientists that have published concerns about the health risks of 5G. They did not get their information from one chart.

<comment><USER7> Citation needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > At higher radio frequencies, the skin acts as a barrier, shielding the > internal organs, including the brain, from exposure.

So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer? Or is non-ionizing radiation safe regardless of shielding? I wish they had written this article better, because as it stands, it's a mess. If it wasn't for the mention that there was no increase in cancer observed as cell-phones gained popularity (which is at frequencies lower than 5G), it would be entirely unpersuasive.

Would it be too much to ask for blasting a few thousand rats with 5G?

Edit: Skimming [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050) linked by itcrowd, I got the vague impression that biological tests were done roughly as I'd hope. It would be nice if the Times article devoted more ink to studies showing 5G to be safe, instead of 95% focusing on how the claims that it is dangerous are shaky, and barely mentioning studies proving its safety.

<comment><USER4> Let me try to clear it up. (sorry, it got a bit long)

First, the skin (and skull and clothing .. etc.) does act as a barrier, which is why the graph that is shown in the article is flawed (this is mentioned). It shows absorption of microwave radiation in the grey matter of the brain, but it doesn't account for the skin and skull that blocks it.

There are two major effects of radiation: ionization (think X-ray imaging) and heating (think microwave oven). Ionization is irrelevant for 5G, because the frequency is way too low. Heating, on the other hand, happens at many frequencies. For example, a microwave oven is at ~2.4 GHz, just like Wi-Fi (which can also operate at 5 GHz).

That said, the heating is dependent on how much power is transmitted and how well it is absorbed by the skin. For example, a low-power source (Wi-Fi antenna) doesn't fry your skin like a microwave oven because a) the power is too low and b) it mostly reflects off the surface of the skin.

The power levels that 5G needs to operate at are quite low and the reflection off the skin is quite high. This is summarized nicely in the reference I gave in another comment here [1].

To answer your specific questions:

> So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer? Or is > non-ionizing radiation safe regardless of shielding?

The ionization effect is not present due to low frequency (see above), the heating effect should be considered, but is minimal (see reference). The authors of [1] note specifically that the skin area is safe, but the eyes may be more vulnerable if the devices operate at large power and are close-by. So, this is not dangerous for consumers but _may_ be dangerous for workers near antennas. However, the radiation level must be very high, and the distance very short. In my reading of the paper, it is not a danger for commercial telecom applications.

> Would it be too much to ask for blasting a few thousand rats with 5G?

That is not my field of expertise..

[1] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050)

<comment><USER27> "So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer?" was mostly meant as a critique of the article, since they use shielding by skin as a defense.

Otherwise yes, I'm aware that 5G is non-ionizing, and produces negligible heating, which doesn't leave many straight-forward ways it could affect biology (maybe EM fields adversely affect protein folding?). For those you pretty much need experimental studies, but looks like they've been conducted, and turned up nothing.

<comment><USER28> EM fields are not affecting protein folding. Moreover this is really just you reacting to something that feels incomprehensible and invisible while discounting something that seems normal - sunlight - even though it's orders of magnitude more powerful, causes more heating, and is directly linked to cancer in the right ranges.

But no one expresses concern about visible light causing damage from localised heating or the EM fields of it disrupting protein folding (hold a torch up to your hand - your body is quite translucent to visible light).

<comment><USER27> > EM fields are not affecting protein folding.

Why not? The energy needed to affect that is lower than ionization energy, so they could.

And I'm not "reacting" to anything. 60 GHz radiation is sufficiently different from sunlight that it might plausibly have a different effect on us (such as by interacting with some low-energy absorption peak of a protein that visible light does not interact with due to its higher energy, or by penetrating deeper into tissue than visible light can).

It turns out studies show it is not harmful. But they conducted actual studies to show that - they didn't dismiss it outright "because sunlight".

<comment><USER29> Sunlight bathes you in multiple watts in the same narrow frequency range, so it couldn't do _that_ much.

<comment><USER27> Surely it's a different narrow frequency range? Otherwise sunlight would act as a signal jammer, a source of noise that drowned out our wireless signals?

<comment><USER29> You can filter out a stable amount pretty easily but oops I just checked the blackbody math again and an exponent flipped when I changed one of the ranges while everything else stayed almost the same, I screwed up and ignore everything I said.

<comment><USER27> Hehe, happens :)

But, suppose the sun _did_ interfere - how would you filter this out? Due to the black-body nature of the source, the amplitude would be stable, but the phase wouldn't be - you'd get entirely uncorrelated white noise, right? How can you filter that?

<comment><USER4> Good question. A good but short answer is given on Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter#Matched_filter_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter#Matched_filter_in_digital_communications)). Any undergraduate textbook on digital signal processing should have details on this topic.

edit: to add to this, the capacity C ("throughput") of the communications channel is linear with bandwidth B (in Hertz) but only logarithmic (log_2) with noise power N. This was derived by Shannon ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem#Statement_of_the_theorem)) and in equation form:

      C = B*log_2(1+S/N)

Example: signal to noise ratio is 1 (S/N = 1). Result:

      C = B

Now we increase the bandwidth of our channel by a factor of 10, keeping the signal power equal. This will lead to a factor 10 more noise power (S/N = 1/10). Result:

      C = 10*B*log_2(1 + 1/10) = 1.38*B

So we can improve the channel capacity by increasing the bandwidth even in a noisy channel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Several years ago I interned at a company that dealt with millimeter wave equipment.

My mentor there was at great pains to train all of us in safety practices. He mentioned several times that the incidence of eye problems in telecommunication engineers who dealt with this sort of equipment was much higher.

We were trained to always cap any emitters to prevent spraying the lab.

<comment><USER4> I don't know about incidence rates (source?) but obviously lab equipment is more dangerous than a consumer product. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Stop acting like the only possible way that this technology can affect human life for worse is if it causes us cancer. Do your research about the bees and return here to tell me how humanity can possibly survive for the next 100 years if we cannot even solve problems of much lower complexity. I'm sad to see clever individuals cherry picking one case in the problem set and treating what is happening like a joke. If you can't see the bigger picture don't even try to assume what you can't possibly know. Our ridiculous self protection argument is frequently this one:it doesn't affect us directly, then everything is fine. This is why our civilization is destined do collapse. See that I'm talking about us. The earth goes on.

</comment><comment><USER32> [http://archive.is/c7gjH](http://archive.is/c7gjH)

</comment><comment><USER33> Are voltage gated calcium channels not within this frequency?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/)

<comment><USER4> The short answer is no.

The long answer is that according to Table 1 of your source, there are four frequencies that affect VGCC:

1) Static fields (i.e. DC, 0 Hz)

2) 50/60 Hz (wall-socket frequency)

3) 700-1100 MHz (cell-phone frequencies)

4) ~1 GHz (authors call it "nanosecond pulse")

These are all well below the "controversial" 5G frequencies, and even below Wi-Fi frequencies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Has anyone done an experiment where they raise a couple generations of rats between two 5G base stations constantly transmitting at ~80% capacity?

That seems like it would quite conclusively demonstrate safety.

<comment><USER35> 5G is too new for that but there was a decade-long study in which they blasted mice and rats with ridiculous EM fields similar to 2G/3G technology but at much higher power, and the results were equivocal. [https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/04/30/is_5g_w...](https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/04/30/is_5g_wireless_dangerous_no_but_science_may_never_end_the_debate.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's issues like this that make me sympathetic to people who are "anti- science", or generally lack belief in the status-quo of generally accepted health safety.

There are a myriad of instances of the government and the scientific community being wrong - while many of us would like to think that we're qualified to judge the invalidity of studies like this, most of us are not. When one credentialed person disagrees with another, would it not be common sense to err on the side of safety?

Don't get me wrong, the gross disregard for science and education is VERY not good. I don't think 5G is going to give anyone cancer, vaccines are definitely good, GMO is good, etc etc. That being said, I think it's a really difficult world to navigate, especially when the internet can create a level playing field between two "experts" very easily.

I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say here, other than this sucks - hearing that people are wasting taxpayer dollars suing Portland to get wifi out of schools is too bad, and the fact that they have "legitimate" studies to show why it's a problem is all the worse.

<comment><USER37> > When one credentialed person disagrees with another, would it not be common > sense to err on the side of safety?

No. Credentials are not what matters. The public should follow the scientific consensus and be prepared for the consensus to be refined over time as new evidence emerges.

There is an overwhelming evidence that non-ionizing radiation at the power level phones use is not harmful. Individual quacks questioning the consensus without evidence should not be given equal weight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> this looks like a PR sponsored by wireless industry, take it with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER39> My takeaway was "5g does not reliably cause cancer". Seems legit. It's not a magic cancer box, yo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> ads ads ads.. stopped reading

</comment><comment><USER41> What's the point of submitting paywalled content?

Edit: This is an honest question, looking for an actual answer. Is the point just to comment on the headline?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones- wir...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless- cancer.html?emc=rss&partner=rss)

<comment><USER41> also paywalled

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What I can't understand is why people are so prone to believing the fake facts that make the rounds on the internet. It is so easy to debunk them, and anyone who has studied the topic for any amount of time knows they are false. Is there a name for this phenomenon? How can so many people be so wrongly informed?

Examples [of fake facts]:

      5G is dangerous
      Earth is flat
      Climate change isn't anthropogenic
      Moon landing didn't happen
      etc.

<comment><USER42> It's easy to criticize certain people, especially conspiracy theorists. Yet conspiracies have actually happened and products have been recalled due to massive lies being told that cost countless lives. Thalidomide, celebrex, Bridgestone tires, asbestos, Ford fuel tanks, cigarettes, 737max, etc. What's new is peoples' ability to organize and question what is being offered to (or in this case forced on ) them.

They very well may be wrong, and a lot of their arguments are pseudoscience bunk, but it's equally ignorant to believe the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM that everything is safe. Corporations have repeatedly proven that they are perfectly fine killing us if it boosts their share price a buck or two. Maybe this is the new normal where industries have to be preemptive in getting public approval first before deploying new technology.

<comment><USER4> Look, I don't disagree with most things you say. However, especially in modern times with all academic papers being so easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection, the argument of "believ[ing] the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM" makes no sense.

Everyone, and especially (science) journalists who report on this, can look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature and accurately portray what is communicated through that channel. You don't have to swallow the science as- is, but if there is criticism, it should be on the methods or techniques; not the funding, or reasonable conclusions* drawn from the findings.

In other comments in this thread I have shown evidence that 5G is safe and highlighted flaws in other blogposts (not scientific articles, mind you) that are pretending otherwise. If people don't agree with that, that's fine but show the scientific evidence for it.

Yes, there have been scandals in the past. Does that mean every new tech is the new scandal? No.

*(conclusions not backed by evidence are fair-game)

<comment><USER42> I'm basically on board with 5G on the health front because any form of radiation exposure decreases with the square of the radius and, as you have shown, no ionizing or other adverse effects have been seen with pretty much any RF source. I have mild suspicion that directional antennas could be used as a weapon, but I think that's unlikely-to-impossible.

I was merely trying to explain why phenomena like this (suspicion, FUD against new technology) arise. People are losing their trust in what they are being told, and there _are_ rational explanations for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> We don't need to treat 5G like it's magical just because it has a new name. It's just radio. We have been living around radio forever. Unless there is real evidence that other radio broadcasts cause problems, there's no reason to study 5G in particular.

<comment><USER44> It's a significantly higher frequency. RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers (any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much higher than 5G). This is a high-frequency signal with access points packed densely, which means more RF per person by an order of magnitude. Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but harmful in large ones?

Not trying to fear-monger here, but the bottom line is we don't know. As the above comment said, I've seen experts on both sides, and really have no idea where to lean on this one.

<comment><USER45> >It's a significantly higher frequency.

Than what?

>RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers

Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned.

>(any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much higher than 5G)

Then why even bring it up? You mention at the end of your reply that you're not trying to fear monger.

>This is a high-frequency signal

But lower than the visible spectrum and ionizing radiation.

>Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but harmful in large ones?

Mate, you're being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation every second of your life, in quantities which eclipse anything you mentioned.

>but the bottom line is we don't know

Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more.

<comment><USER5> Regarding your comment "Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more."

Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects.

Secondly, the previous, related technologies have, and the majority of independent studies show harmful health effects from these technologies.

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

To quote from the article: "When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai's findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."

<comment><USER46> >Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects.

Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi?

>Lai's findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."

non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe!

charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias.

[1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe

<comment><USER5> Thank you gruez for your answer.

>Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi?

Wouldn't it be sensible to do controlled studies of 5G in some form or other prior to deploying the technology on a large scale and immersing the population in 5G 24/7? Otherwise, as many have pointed out, we become the "guinea pigs."

>Lai's findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."

non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe!

I don't expect they would be directly paying off scientists. This article is worth reading:

[https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made- us-t...](https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t..).

From the article: "Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up." —Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki

charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias.

This is an interesting point I had not thought of, thank you for bringing it up. It would be interesting to know if the independently-funded studies were less well-funded than the industry-funded studies.

[1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe

I don't expect there has been paying of bribes. The 28% in spite of the industry pressure may reflect a degree of resilience of science itself, and/or some level of integrity of the scientists despite the pressure.

<comment><USER4> So, on the one hand we need to "prove safety" of $NEW_TECH before deployment and on the other hand the $NEW_TECH industry is not allowed to fund the investigation (because suspicious!!)?

How does anything new get invented in that world?

Also, your linked article is extremely long but ends with this sentence that is just ... well I don't know... ridiculous:

"No scientist can say with certainty how many wireless-technology users are likely to contract cancer, but that is precisely the point: We simply don't know."

<comment><USER22> > How does anything new get invented in that world?

I agree with you that the linked article reeks of FUD, but I'd urge you to consider that less caution and oversight wrt to new inventions is not free. Every time we pull a new ball out of the "urn" of possible inventions we're gambling that the pros will outweigh the cons. I can't agree with being too pro-industry and derisive of caution (see: [https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf)).

<comment><USER4> I agree with that!

Thanks for the linked dissertation. I will take some time to read it soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The real problem with 5G is that the access points will be mounted on every city block! There will be a lot more power to the emissions.

People living close to cellphone towers do experience effects. Some people are so sensitive they have to all together move to towns with close to zero EM waves.

You can feel sunlight on your skin btw.

And then there are the insects and other animals...

<comment><USER37> > People living close to cellphone towers do experience effects. Some people > are so sensitive they have to all together move to towns with close to zero > EM waves.

No they don't. Just because they believe something doesn't mean it's true. EM sensitivity does not exist, or at least every test done so far has shown no evidence of it existing. The effect is psychosomatic.

<comment><USER47> What about insects and other animals?

Can you show that the argument "Human skin blocks HF radiowaves" translates over to the birds bees and other animals?

Seems we already have had colony collapse disorder and other things possibly because of cellphone signals. Even 3G:

[http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/bee.decline.mobil...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/bee.decline.mobile.phones/index.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Tourbillon Watches: Discussion of the Grand Prix D'Horlogerie de Genève 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://quillandpad.com/2014/10/10/tourbillon-pre-selected-watches-round-table-discussion-of-the-grand-prix-dhorlogerie-de-geneve-2014/

<comment><USER2> I clicked on this figuring I'd look at some pretty pictures of toys for the ultra-rich, but as it turns out people are still coming up with new and interesting things to do with watch movements. It was unexpectedly fascinating - though it glossed on some technical detail that would have made it much cooler.</comment>


The Go Playground - <AUTHOR> http://golang.org/doc/play/

<comment><USER2> What is HNs general feeling toward the Go Programming Language? Will this be the next big thing to develop with?

There's a rather attractive summary on the golang.org main page:

"The Go programming language is an open source project to make programmers more productive. Go is expressive, concise, clean, and efficient. Its concurrency mechanisms make it easy to write programs that get the most out of multicore and networked machines, while its novel type system enables flexible and modular program construction. Go compiles quickly to machine code yet has the convenience of garbage collection and the power of run-time reflection. It's a fast, statically typed, compiled language that feels like a dynamically typed, interpreted language."

But how likely is this language to be generally accepted? I guess only time can tell as to whether they generate enough interest for people to start developing cool things with it. Just trying to get a better idea as to whether it'd be worth my time to really dive into... (I know, more exposure never hurt anyone... Sans Chernobyl... too soon?)</comment>


Introducing a more powerful Dropbox Pro - <AUTHOR> https://blog.dropbox.com/2014/08/introducing-more-powerful-dropbox-pro/ <comment><USER2> Dropbox is morally corrupt and support for them by HN users is disappointing.

I wrote to Dropbox and said I wanted to cancel my account and get a pro-rated refund because of their hiring of Condoleezza Rice. Her involvement in the Iraq war and the mass surveillance of Americans is deplorable.

A few days after my request my account was converted to the free version, with the limitations of the free version. I could no longer sync any files. When I saw this I assumed I was going to get the refund.

Days passed. I asked about the refund. The support email included disturbingly fawning about Ms. Rice and how amazing she was, and insisted that the Dropbox ToS made it flat-out _impossible_ for them to issue any refunds. My account was changed back to allow the 100 GB of storage and Dropbox acted like it never botched my request.

It almost funny that they would not even respect differing opinion on their hiring of Ms. Rice and graciously offer a refund to those offended by such a move. Hiding behind their own ToS just shows how deaf they are to the matter. They basically don't give a fuck, and they don't have to because they have enough people who are more concerned with convenience than principles as amply shown on HN.

There are very good alternatives to Dropbox. Both SpiderOak and ownCloud work great on Windows, OSX, and Linux. You can get managed ownCloud hosting if you don't want to set up your own: [https://owner.io](https://owner.io).

It's puzzling that anyone would trust them with their data given their behavior.

<comment><USER3> Why are you entitled to a refund? You disagree with their hiring policies? You already paid the $99 for 1 year of service. You already bought it. It's done. Your option is to cancel at renewal or not.

That's my take, anyway. I also asked for a refund when Google announced their far cheaper plans for GDrive, and this just a month after I renewed. They told me the same thing -- a policy of no partial refunds. So I asked them to ensure I would not be auto rebilled, and that was that. Why exactly are they morally corrupt for this?

<comment><USER4> There are two logically consistent ways of handling this type of request:

A) Pro-rate the cost and immediately drop down to a free tier or cancel the service

B) Disable renewal, but keep the same level of service until the renewal date.

According to OP, he was knocked down to free tier but not issued a refund. That is incredibly odd, given that he already paid for the service

<comment><USER2> _According to OP, he was knocked down to free tier but not issued a refund. That is incredibly odd, given that he already paid for the service_

To be clear: The knocked me back to the lower free tier and quota, and only restored the quota a few days later when I saw no refund and complained.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there a reason the old thread was killed and this up in its place?

I thought the sales page contained better information than the blog post.

That aside, I feel this needs to be brought up in every Dropbox thread:

Get rid of Condoleezza Rice and I'll happily use your product.

<comment><USER4> One possible explanation: Dropbox is a YC company, HN is a YC website, and the previous discussion seemed to take a turn for the negative

<comment><USER5> As it should. We are a community voicing our opinions about a company. If we find they are doing wrong, shouldn't we say something about it?

<comment><USER2> Absolutely. The support for Dropbox here is disheartening.

<comment><USER6> Disheartening to _you_.

I like Dropbox, it solves a none trivial problem in a good way and I don't care that they hired Condoleeza Rice for their board.

I'm not a American.

<comment><USER7> I'm guessing you're not Iraqi, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ditch Condi Rice and apologize for allowing her in, and I'll consider using Dropbox again.

As it stands, there are an abundance of other companies doing the same thing as Dropbox which do not associate with known war criminals. This makes them more desirable business partners.

</comment><comment><USER9> I switched to Copy since the Condoleeza Rice situation and I have had no problems whatsoever. I have the app running on a macbook pro, an imac and two android mobile devices. It's also about half the price that Dropbox charges. I recommend it.

<comment><USER10> Honest question, how good is their client? The Google Drive client on OSX appears to be bit shit and I am considering moving everything away to a new system.

<comment><USER9> Honest answer: it seems to be a bit slower than Dropbox, but it's still pretty good. I haven't had any issues yet (no lost files). They also offer the same auto-upload of your photos from your smartphone, which I am running on an Android device, and that works wonderfully as well. I'm a very satisfied customer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "You now have 1,045.GB .." Quite good news! I now just need a way to exclude some files (.aux .tmp) and will be set!

<comment><USER12> Yea, we need a .dbignore, or something of the sort.

<comment><USER13> You mean like this? [http://konolige.com/dbignore/](http://konolige.com/dbignore/)

<comment><USER12> Wow. Yes. Exactly like that. Good looking out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is disappointing that Dropbox still does not offer any options for secure storage. Personally, you might be fine with unencrypted stories but at least for companies in Europe, having (all) your data with an American cloud provider without local encryption on your side is simply not a legal option …

Dropbox is a great service, however, it would be even greater if I could use Dropbox for all my data and not only selected data where I do not consider local encryption necessary.

(I know about add-on software like Boxcryptor but all options I have tested so far were not user-friendly enough … Dropbox competitors with encryption like Spideroak and Wuala work good enough but are in no way as user-friendly and convenient as Dropbox.)

<comment><USER15> > Dropbox competitors with encryption like Spideroak and Wuala

Unless one doesn't really cares about security and wants encryption for the sake of having encryption, there's no way their implementations could be considered sufficient.

Without audit you're just taking their word for it — which is exactly as when you take Dropbox's word that they won't peek at your data (unencrypted or possibly encrypted but one can't verify that). And to audit those one needs to spend a lot of time reverse engineering their applications, and then auto- update mechanism could render those efforts void at any moment. I've spent about a weekend debugging and looking at decompiled SpiderOak code and while I hadn't found anything suspicious (although I'm not a crypto or security expert) the only judgement I was certain with was "this behemoth's too complex to study in detail, not worth the time to continue the research"

The point is, the data could be encrypted, but it's pointless to just have the encryption — to assume some security one must be certain about many aspects of how it's done — when, how and where encryption keys are generated, when, where and how data's processed, what are exact crypto algorithms used and how they are composed together and so on. And, obviously, a possibility to verify the description completely matches the actual implementation.

So, I think, security should be really done by a separate software module that could be completely reviewed by anyone (from tech-savvy end-users to security researchers) and can't be remotely auto-updated without explicit user consent.

<comment><USER16> I don't know about SpiderOak but I totally trust Tarsnap.

But agreed we have to trust the software companies/devs when using crypto.

Not many people really trust Dropbox anymore to build client-side encryption themselves. But you could use a different program for encryption with dropbox as simple storage. That being said, you still have to trust the Dropbox binaries installed on your system as well. Security paranoia can go deep.

<comment><USER17> You can examine the source of Tarsnap, though, unlike Dropbox or Spideroak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been waiting on this for a long time. Now Dropbox might actually be a viable, affordable off-site backup solution.

<comment><USER18> Dropbox isn't ideal for backup at all.

Look into Crashplan. Client-side encryption, unlimited versioning, never deletes files, and only $6/month for truly unlimited backup.

<comment><USER19> Does it have an OSS Linux client, even headless?

All I want is to encryptedly back up some directories on my home server, but nothing* really does that. I use SpiderOak at the moment, but it's not OSS.

* Except attic, but I'd rather pay for a service as important as this (I don't trust the remote server to not lose files): [http://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/](http://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/)

<comment><USER20> [http://www.tarsnap.com/](http://www.tarsnap.com/)

[http://rsync.net/](http://rsync.net/)

<comment><USER19> Thanks, but both of those are extremely expensive for backing up photos and various files (100 GB worth).

<comment><USER21> Just a note since we're on the topic ...

\- HN Discount for new customers is 10c per GB, per month. No charges for usage or traffic, etc.

\- We just began announcing 3c pricing for 1PB and above. That may be more space than you require, however.

We've adjusted our pricing quite a bit in the last 30 days in conjunction with offering our PB filesystems, etc.

It's always worth emailing us.

<comment><USER22> Curious if the multi-pb accounts are in a single flat namespace. Or even the same filesystem... 1PB of ZFS seems scary

<comment><USER20> > 1PB of ZFS seems scary

Why so?

<comment><USER22> I meant in one filesystem. No obvious way to construct a single zpool anywhere near that big.

And if not one filesystem, curious how it would work in practice.

<comment><USER21> We currently allow 1.1 PB in a single "namespace" (zpool).

There are non-obvious ways to make a petabyte-sized zpool non-scary ... but even with those employed we still utilize raidz3 and have contingencies for rollbacks.

edit: for obvious reasons, that 1.1 PB number will grow by 50% in the very near future...

<comment><USER22> It's easy enough to jam enough disks into a rack with these 90disk 4u super micro jbods. The thing that always scared me (ESP with rsync) is how do you get performant metadata for a few billion files? Or even tens of millions.

And raidz3 resilver must be horrible at those densities!

Again. Just curious. Email at jmancuso@expandrive if you feel like chatting. I know we offer a similar product, but we are about to leave zfs for the above concerns. Wouldn't mind sending some business your way.

<comment><USER23> Any hints at what filesystem you are moving Strongspace over to? Assuming that you will be moving off SmartOS as well?

<comment><USER22> Distributed object storage

Filesystem: ExpanDrive :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A comment on the site points it out already but they charge European users more now (€9.99 which is $13.17 currently). Is there an external reason?

Does that include VAT? Did they get a datacentre somewhere in the EU?

<comment><USER25> Yeah, what's up with that? Apple-esque practices for digital goods. I just used a VPN to purchase the $ plan instead.

<comment><USER26> If you bought it personally (i.e. a B2C sale) you should be fine, but as a warning for any _(update: UK based, at least)_ VAT-registered traders or businesses, you will need to reverse charge the VAT which mostly defeats the point.

<comment><USER25> You don't need to reverse charge the VAT as a EU business because there's no VAT stated on the invoice at all (b/c it's a US company).

[edited] this is bullocks, IANAA(ccountant) applies here deservedly.

<comment><USER26> Maybe VAT law is different in your country but that is not true in the UK where reverse charging of VAT is required on services where the supplier is "outside the UK" (including outside the EU). Indeed, HMRC's guidance on this includes an example of a US-based Web hosting company providing hosting to a UK business: [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/vatpossmanual/vatposs14300.ht...](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/vatpossmanual/vatposs14300.htm)

HMRC do note that _" the UK applies the reverse charge provisions more widely than elsewhere in the EU"_, however, and for this I get the joy of having to reverse charge about 50 invoices a quarter for US services (all our hosting, SaaS bills, etc) ;-) For example, if a host in the US bills us $100, we then have to reverse charge $20 converted into GBP at approved rates, then claim the equivalent back.. so the net position is zero but it has to be accounted for (holds head in hands and rocks back and forth).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Dropbox having good Linux support is a big reason I use them personally and professionally (both paid).

But geez do they mess other things up. For example you can only share top level folders. We have to share with various outside parties and that limitation leads to a very cluttered file structure.

The solution for multiple accounts is beyond annoying. The correct way of doing it how google does it - you provide however many sets of credentials and can then easily select the current set to use/view. Dropbox do this idiotic thing where you tie your personal one into a business one, then logging into the latter also logs you into the former and everything works as though it is one account, with enforced folder names. I'm sure there is some weak justification about how this prevents issues with free accounts, but making paying users have a horrible time isn't the way to achieve that.

<comment><USER28> > Dropbox having good Linux support is a big reason I use them personally

AeroFS (what I use), Bittorrent Sync and Syncthing (Golang, OSS) all support Linux (and Mac/Win) and are good alternatives.

<comment><USER27> While they all have desirable attributes, especially for individual usage, they are harder to cooperate with others. (By that I mean try to get friends and relatives to use them with you, when those folk aren't tech savvy and certainly don't have their own storage.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> More granular permissioning, and an increase in space to 1TB. Not bad.

</comment><comment><USER30> The biggest benefit of Dropbox is the mobile app client support. On iOS, you see Dropbox and iCloud support, but rarely anything else.

When other sync services like Box and friends get more integration, I'll gladly switch away since I would love some sort of encryption, which Dropbox, and Evernote damn you, appear unable or unwilling to implement.

</comment><comment><USER31> All that matters: Does Dropbox encrypt my data on the client side, before storing it on the server?

Or does Dropbox have the power to pilfer through my data, along with official snoopers and hackers?

<comment><USER14> No, Dropbox does NOT encrypt your data on the client site.

Alternatives would be Spideroak and Wuala or addon software like Boxcryptor. They work but not as flawlessly and user-friendly as Dropbox usually does …

<comment><USER19> I've found EncFS over Dropbox to be pretty good, retaining the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER32> Please be cautious: EncFS was _not_ designed to resist an attacker having ongoing access to the volume, as they would in this scenario!

In particular, an attacker having access to the ciphertext at two or more different times violates EncFS's security assumptions; undetected malicious modification of files is also feasible in this scenario.

Many encrypted filesystems do not include such a property in their design criteria - for example, XTS mode as-is is not suitable for use in this scenario either, so please also try to avoid putting TrueCrypt (et al) on Dropbox!

For a broad general example of what a system would look like which tries to address this use case more naturally and effectively (although, caveat: I have not reviewed it in great detail myself), please see Tahoe-LAFS.

<comment><USER33> I've been using Dropbox with EncFS, and I feel foolish about not thinking of the fact that Dropbox has ongoing access to the encrypted files.

Would you recommend something other than Dropbox + EncFS as the best compromise for a file-sync solution that has reasonable security, a non-buggy client, supports block-level sync, is reasonably priced and "just works"? BitTorrent Sync + EncFS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I do not have a need of 1TB of space, just 100GB would do. It would be great if they provided a tier of 100GB plan (just like Google Drive)

<comment><USER11> No one (almost) needs 1TB... the way they can afford it is they expect most people to use at most a few hundred GB, but with the peace of mind that they could store more

<comment><USER35> Personal photos and videos I don't want to lose, which are of course backed up to actual backup systems, but I also want access to wherever I am. That's what I need 1TB for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wish OS vendors weren't asleep at the wheel. This sort of service needs to be integrated into the OS. I'm sick of having an OS that doesn't include next- generation features like seamless p2p filesharing. I guess its time to make one ..

<comment><USER37> You mean like Windows 8 and OneDrive? Or OS X and iCloud? Or Ubuntu and Ubuntu One(now discontinued)?

<comment><USER36> These are just backup services between Microsft/Apple/Ubuntu, Inc., and the users.

What I want is true p2p. Like, nobody in between necessary, because the OS has everything onboard to make it happen. That sort of 'asleep at the wheel'..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> EncFS over Dropbox works best for me: [http://ninjatips.com/encrypt-dropbox- using-encfs/](http://ninjatips.com/encrypt-dropbox-using-encfs/)

</comment><comment><USER39> It is unclear whether the packrat add-on for unlimited versioning is still available for Dropbox Pro.

<comment><USER40> I think it is only available if you were already signed up for it. I just chose to continue with the packrat add-on for my pro account. It seems like the alternative they are now offering is only extended version history. (which would save changes for a year)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> So I have the $20/month a plan, and my reward appears to be that I pay twice as much and still have 200GB...? Do I have to cancel and re-subscribe? Anyone from Dropbox out there..???

<comment><USER42> > Already a Pro user? Dropbox will update automatically in the next couple > days. You don't have to do a thing.

Looks like you just have to wait a few days.

<comment><USER43> Plus, if you're on a larger plan the upgrade is to 10x your current space. So 2TB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> [http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Dropbox-slash-its- price-99-yr-f...](http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Dropbox-slash-its-price-99-yr- for-1TB-Aug-2014)

</comment><comment><USER45> Whoever downvoted my previous comment, can you explain to me why you care about Dropbox Pro?

<comment><USER46> I didn't downvote, but it wasn't a productive comment -- it was just snarky and condescending.

I don't think this is front-page worthy of HN, sure, but anytime someone at Google/Dropbox/Apple does so much as pass gas, people around here get excited.

<comment><USER47> Helping Dropbox grow is arguably the single greatest achievement of YC to date. I think in that light it makes sense that news about Dropbox gets on the front page of news.ycombinator.com.

<comment><USER45> I would "argue" that fact, given the chance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Was privacy ever a feature? Will it ever become a Dropbox feature or is it impossible due to either today's political climate or Dropbox's internal views on the matter?

</comment><comment><USER49> A quick reminder of the practices of Dr. Rice, member of Dropbox's Board of directors: [http://drop-dropbox.com](http://drop-dropbox.com).

</comment><comment><USER50> I feel like I missed out on something major reading these comments.

What have I missed in the last 6 months concerning db and Condoleezza Rice?

</comment><comment><USER45> lol who cares?

<comment><USER51> I do care about dropbox, it's the only cloud system that works well on linux systems . It used to be overpriced but now the pricing is good. Also Google Drive is terrible on Windows if like me you have a lot of files. One drive is limited to 2GB of file size.

I have yet to find a great alternative to it.

<comment><USER52> Owncloud is great, and avoids the moral complexities of contributing to a board that includes at least one endorser of torture and warrantless surveillance.

<comment><USER14> … if you have the knowledge, money and time to manage your Owncloud server in a secure way. Since such configuration includes a more advanced firewall, most users will not have the necessary skills I am afraid …

Focused on Owncloud only, the latest version is indeed great! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I've got something I like better than Dropbox. It's called rdiff.

It does one thing only: deduplication.

All the other stuff needed for remote, incremental backups, e.g., moving files back and forth over a network, can be done with other open source tools. I think I have a pretty good command of moving files around with open source software... I do not need a third party to help me via an obfuscated blob of Python and who knows what else.

I like having control over my backups versus trusting it all to some closed- source, third party, "all-in-one" application.

In my mind having control and transparency will always be more powerful than handing over my data deduplication and backup to a third party, such as "Dropbox".

But I imagine there are few others who would agree. Forgive me for not loving Dropbox. Maybe some day I will see the light.

<comment><USER54> How do I set up these tools to automatically sync a set of files between multiple computers and make them accessible from my smartphone and tablet?

<comment><USER55> It's been mentioned in a few other comments, but ownCloud does all that.

[https://owncloud.org/](https://owncloud.org/)

You don't even need to set it up yourself:

[https://owncloud.org/providers/](https://owncloud.org/providers/)

<comment><USER54> Thanks for the pointer. I'd heard about that before but never really checked it out. Looks pretty straightforward.

<comment><USER56> If you don't mind hosting yourself, Seafile is also open source and has really nice Mac/Windows/Linux/Android/iOS client apps. It also does delta syncs, which I don't believe ownCloud supports yet:

[http://seafile.com/en/download/](http://seafile.com/en/download/) [http://manual.seafile.com/](http://manual.seafile.com/)

<comment><USER54> Thanks, that sounds even better.

What's with the lack of delta syncs in all these systems? As far as I know, neither Google Drive nor OneDrive do it. Now you're saying ownCloud doesn't do it either. I didn't even think to look at it for oneCloud because _obviously_ they'd support it.

I consider it to be an essential feature, to the point that I won't bother with something that doesn't support it. I guess I'm unusual in that respect.

<comment><USER53> I suspected I would get downvoted for not loving Dropbox. And I was right. Interesting.

FYI

rdiff is the reference implementation or first example of a utility written with librsync, which is the library that Dropbox used to build their "business".

Usage: rdiff [OPTIONS] signature [BASIS [SIGNATURE]] [OPTIONS] delta SIGNATURE [NEWFILE [DELTA]] [OPTIONS] patch BASIS [DELTA [NEWFILE]]

Options: -v, --verbose Trace internal processing -V, --version Show program version -?, --help Show this help message -s, --statistics Show performance statistics Delta-encoding options: -b, --block-size=BYTES Signature block size -S, --sum-size=BYTES Set signature strength \--paranoia Verify all rolling checksums IO options: -I, --input-size=BYTES Input buffer size -O, --output- size=BYTES Output buffer size -z, --gzip[=LEVEL] gzip-compress deltas -i, --bzip2[=LEVEL] bzip2-compress deltas

<comment><USER54> What's the relevance of this reply to the preceding comment thread?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Electronic Screen Syndrome - What Parents should know - <AUTHOR> https://kidslox.com/blog/electronic-screen-syndrome/ <comment><USER2> Don't forget to also warn your kids about the dangers of... NOVELS!

[http://www.merrycoz.org/voices/NOVELS.xhtml](http://www.merrycoz.org/voices/NOVELS.xhtml)</comment>


ex googlrs heart ycombinator startups. c4 urself - <AUTHOR> http://www.felicisvc.com/portfolio.aspx

<comment><USER2> <http://www.felicisvc.com/images/public/Meraki%20Networks.jpg>

Whoever took that screenshot seems to have neglected to move their cursor. (The quality is also poor. Shouldn't have been a JPEG. But that's not as funny.)

<comment><USER3> The weird thing is, that looks like a Windows cursor, but most of the Windows screenshot software I have used (including the built-in "Prt Scr" feature) gives you an image without the cursor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> oic i guess they really like those startups or w/e but lol iono liek do you think theyll actually work i mean like google is going to buy those companies for a zillion $$$$??????

whod buy stupid web stuff on the internet, its only good for porn and myspace <333

<comment><AUTHOR> relax.

<comment><USER5> don't do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> the best YC headline this year!

</comment><comment><USER7> Aydin definitely loves YCombinator, as does Sacca.</comment>


(Incomplete) Chicago's Venture Capital/Private Equity List - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/businessList.pl?djoPage=view_html&djoPid=1624&djoPY=@pIbQbWWVKREY A recent thread bemoaned the fact that there are very few investment groups in Chicago that will fund startups.  The link is a list from Crains showing some of the investment groups in Chicago, some of which DO fund early-stage companies.<p>I note that it is an incomplete list in the title, because I know of several funds that specialize in early-stage startups that are NOT on this list.  Those funds tend to be a bit more publicity shy.  This list might be a starting point for you, though,if you're currently looking for a funding source in Chicago. <comment><AUTHOR> A recent HN thread bemoaned the fact that there are very few investment groups in Chicago that will fund startups. This a list from Crains showing some of the investment groups in Chicago, some of which DO fund early-stage companies.

I note that it is an incomplete list in the title, because I know of several funds that specialize in early-stage startups that are NOT on this list. Those funds tend to be a bit more publicity shy. This list might be a starting point for you, though,if you're currently looking for a funding source in Chicago.</comment>


FBI to continue Trump-Russia probe but will not update White House - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-probe-continue-no-white-house-updates-fbi-director-hearing-a7730856.html <comment><USER2> Click bate - one key word was withheld from the title of the article... first paragraph the word is added "routinely"

FBI to continue Trump-Russia probe......"but will not routinely update the White House"

That's a key word. I want to know what is discovered as much as the next guy, but I would love to avoid the media frenzy of misinformation of limited information.

CNN does such a horrible job of waiting until the facts come in to break a story.</comment>


Britain slumps to bottom of cancer survival tables - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/11/britain-slumps-bottom-cancer-survival-league-tables-two-decades/ <comment><USER2> bottom of table for countries with universal healthcare is not that bad

<comment><USER3> It absolutely is when you consider the strength of the research communities surrounding cancers and their treatments in the UK.

<comment><USER4> I've heard that "charities" such as Cancer Research UK are actually business who invest very little of their income to actual research, instead paying relatively a lot more for media and payroll?

<comment><USER5> £545 million spent on research and £42 million on public information out of £672 million raised. So approx 13% spent on administration.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NSA Honeypot - <AUTHOR> http://camdp.com/blogs/nsa-honeypot

<comment><USER2> Shades of the old USENET trend of including "NSA Food" lines in signatures. I never saw the point since it would so easily be ignored.

Sample USENET post from December, 1987 with an "NSA Food" line in the signature (and a related joke line): [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.sys....](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/comp.sys.amiga/6pGwO4St5L4)

Discussion of "NSA food" lines from April, 1987: [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/news.misc...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/news.misc/cDkMQNMZzy8)

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems to be timing out for me. Anyone have a description or mirror?

<comment><AUTHOR> it's back up now I believe.

<comment><USER4> The page refuses to scroll on an iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> At one point there was an anonymous mail relay that would inject random suspicious text ("The cook needs more semtex") into all messages. Wish I could remember the name.

<comment><USER5> Emacs used to do it. See: www.catb.org/jargon/html/N/NSA-line-eater.html

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Didn't Apple file a patent for multiple profiles (derived from one) on a social network? Thought I read this somewhere.</comment>


Which College Produces the Most Billionaires? - <AUTHOR> http://www.visualcapitalist.com/college-most-billionaires/ <comment><USER2> Which aftershave produces the most billionaires?</comment>


AdAdmire - Ads for followers (not tweets) - <AUTHOR> http://adadmire.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> We've been thinking about ways to monetise our own twitter application (managetwitter.com - over 30,000 users high growth) so we came up with this.

We think it's an interesting strategy - pay to be put in front of people who might want to follow you. It strengthens twitter's network graph & adds value all round.

Feedback welcome!</comment>


USA Immigration (Flowchart) - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/VG2cb.jpg <comment><USER2> This is incorrect. My family received a green card immediately, and were eligible for citizenship one year after receiving it.

It does not account for H1-B and renewal leading to nearly a guaranteed greencard.

Also, this presents citizenship as the goal of immigration. A green card provides all the benefits that citizenship require for starting a company. The only material differences is the ability to facilitate the process of providing your family with work visas.

</comment><comment><USER3> And then pg says that Silicon Valley is the best place to start a start-up:

well only if you are already a US citizen. Otherwise, you can forget it.

</comment><comment><USER4> What is this process designed to optimize? My guess: it's massively arbitrary, which would be really shameful given the impact immigration policy has on lives & families.

<comment><USER3> Nothing. It is designed to please rednecks, who don't want 'em foreigners who are stealying our 'obs.

The entire thing is mess upon mess, upon mess created by lobiests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What about L visa</comment>


Ask HN: www and non www redirection issue. Somebody help! - <AUTHOR>

Hi,<p>I have a website ABC.com the thing is that www.ABC.com is working  while ABC.com is not. I set up domain forwarding for both to point to www.ABC.com but the browser says its an infinite loop. So, I setup a subdomain in ABC.example.com and pointed both ABC.com and www.ABC.com to ABC.example.com with the URL masked. Will there be any problems from SE point of view? Right now it seems to be working fine. Also I absolutely dont want my visitors to know that it is hosted in example.com As this is a custom domain issue I dont have .htaccess or 301 redirect permissions <comment><USER2> This is going to sound blunt, but I mean it politely: Hacker News is not for tech support.

I would suggest heading over to StackOverflow.com, or one of many webmaster community forums to ask this.

<comment><AUTHOR> ok thanks. I am new around here!

<comment><USER3> Make sure you read the guidelines then: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you using some kind of hosting company's graphical configuration ? It sounds like you should not have made www.abc.com forward to itself, and that you are probably ok now, but it's hard to tell.

To really know what is going on here, we would need to know more details -- for instance, by "domain forwarding" do you mean a CNAME record, or a rewrite rule on an apache web server ?

Also, can any cgi code running on abc.example.com tell what name the browser is being used to reach it ? This might matter for the code you use to run the site.

You can educate yourself about these issues without learning everything in the world about the internet, and if you are going to be making money from web sites that would probably be a good idea.</comment>