It's derailed into a political debate between those who "know for a fact" there are zero health implications and those who "know for a fact" that you'll certainly die within a week from a 5g antenna being placed next to your apartment.
It's derailed into a political debate between those who "know for a fact" there are zero health implications and those who "know for a fact" that you'll certainly die within a week from a 5g antenna being placed next to your apartment.
(Extreme) heating effects can cause cancer, but the source of heat is irrelevant. The power levels 5G uses make even this point completely moot.
If you really have to search for something that could cause you cancer, perhaps those rather carcinogenic compounds your phone is made out of could be studied instead? Although I prefer just not to pulverize my phone and breath in the resulting dust. :-)
We are talking about orders of magnitude weaker radiation than what you get dosed with every time you go outside. But further, sunlight does contain ionizing radiation (hello UV).
DNA is conductive, and there are researchers who believe that this might be an important component in how the cell detects and repairs damage to its DNA [1].
There have been a couple of papers that claim that DNA can act as a fractal antenna allowing it to react to wavelengths that you would at first expect to be way too large to affect it. Here's one [2], which claims it interacts over a wide range of frequencies with a resonance at 34 GHz.
If DNA charge transport does turn out to play an important role in how the cell identifies damaged DNA, and if it turns out that those fractal antenna claims are true, then we'd have a potential mechanism for non-ionizing, non-heating radiation to increase cancer rates.
Note that it would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from finding and repairing damage that if left unrepaired will lead to cancer.
The first part of the above, that DNA is conductive, is firmly established. How the cell detects damaged DNA is not known. That charge transport plays a role in that is currently just one theory that researchers are studying, but it is a theory that if it turns out to be true will not surprise anyone.
I haven't been able to find much on fractal antennas, especially very small ones, so can't tell if the claims about DNA acting as an antenna have merit.
[1] http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/Research.htm
[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5699-4_...
What are the specific health concerns from what 5G is doing differently to 4G?
Because I remember a couple of petitions from scientists none of whom in the radio field with no specific scientific information or concerns.
So, yeah, how much do we know for a fact? I say that as a true sceptic (i.e. sceptical with my own views as well as anyone else's). Decades ago we knew for a fact that dumping a ton of plastic into the environment was totally fine. Also we "didn't know for a fact" that greenhouse gas emissions could play a part in affecting our climate for the worse.
Because it is transmitted at the same frequency as previous cell phone technologies. There are literally decades worth of studies around the effects of nonionizing radiation.
The only thing 5G changes is the transmission protocol.
It's fine to be a skeptic, but this is fear mongering. We don't need a 20 year long study to prove something we've known to be safe for 20 years because some crackpots claim it makes them nauseous or causes cancer. If you are going to be skeptical, why aren't you skeptical of the unverified negative claims?
Where's my proof? Google "non-ionizing radiation health". Would find a bunch of articles from reputable sources that all land on the same conclusion. It's safe.
Here's the CDC article on it. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizing_radiation.htm...
TBH, unless you work directly in an area like this and stay up to date, it's a question of faith in experts either way. It basically becomes an appeal to authority, and as you can see, if you have multiple putative authorities, it becomes difficult to select.
This isn't the first anti-RF study he's published and I doubt it will be the last.
Looking further into his claims, he's said everything from "Alzheimer's is caused by WiFi" to "previous non ionizing studies were all flawed because that used the wrong test animal".
I expect when 6G rolls out he'll publish exactly the same study with an equally scary title.
I know, I'm committing an ad hominem fallacy. But at the end of the day I'm not buying his article see the rest of the claims. It is good enough for me that consensuses of much larger studies over longer periods are pretty much all against his study.
This shows the problem right now. If you're not an expert, you don't know what you don't know, and have to yield to some kind of authority. Noise is greater than it has ever been, and trust is low. This will get worse before it gets better....
AFAIK it is not, 5G also deploys >24GHz (up to 300GHz).
Happy to be proven wrong, but so far - from my POV - this has been the biggest hole in the theory that we do not need to test 5G because we already know it is safe...
5G’s benefits over 4G are:
-
4G’s benefits over 5G are:
- Fewer towers necessary because larger coverage areas
- Better penetration of materials
- Doesn’t interfere with weather data collection
Why is there even a push for 5G? What is the benefit to the consumer? A higher bill because a 10x increase in infrastructure is necessary? Asinine. Just use wifi. I don’t understand what 5G was even made to technically accomplish.
It enables huge numbers of connections, making it more feasible for IoT appliances to use cell radios instead of wifi radios, taking yet more control away from consumers.
Oh wait, 'benefits'... well I suppose that's a matter of perspective..
You can literally google "5g benefits" and read through any number of whitepapers.
For one, it has much lower latency, making it competitive with fibre in many areas.
It's more efficient, allowing more devices in the same area. The 60GHz band in particular will allow extreme densities as seen in sports stadiums or major train stations in rush hour.
It has higher peak bandwidth.
It includes special modes optimised for very lower power devices with modest bandwidth requirements.
Etc...
What do people do on their phones ? I'm forcing mine in 3g all the time and it's faster than I need already. Why would you need 1ms ping and 1gbs d/u speeds ?
This sounds like phones having 4k+ screens to me, updating specs for the sake of updating specs, there is no real world need behind it. I guess many people are making big bucks in the scheme though, that's probably the major 5g benefit.
Remote desktop, ssh, VoIP, gaming... anything that's interactive. All of those work better and are more fun to use with low latency.
Even plain web browsing can be much more enjoyable with a low latency connection assuming there's no other bottleneck.
Our computers are millions of times more powerful than back in the days but somehow my 2018 macbook pro crawls to a halt if slack displays more than 2 gifs at the same time.
Anyway, I think we're artificially creating needs that aren't needs in the first place. "b-bu-but how am I supposed to telework from the subway if I don't have my 5g =(", "I can't even stream youtube 8k videos from the bus =("