Worried About 5G's Health Effects? Don't Be (wired.com) 99
There are real concerns about the way 5G is being deployed in the US, including security issues, the potential to interfere with weather forecasting systems, and the FCC steamrolling local regulators in the name of accelerating the 5G rollout. But concerns over the potential health impacts of 5G are overblown. From a report: If you weren't worried about prior generations of cellular service causing cancer, 5G doesn't produce much new to worry about. And you probably didn't need to be worried before. Few 5G services will use higher frequencies in the near term, and there's little reason to think these frequencies are any more harmful than other types of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. Most concerns about health impacts from 5G stem from millimeter-wave technology, high-frequency radio waves that are supposed to deliver much faster speeds. The catch is that millimeter-wave transmissions are far less reliable at long distances than transmissions using the lower frequencies that mobile carriers have traditionally used. To provide reliable, ubiquitous 5G service over millimeter-wave frequencies, carriers will need a larger number of smaller access points.
That's led to two fears: That the effects of millimeter-wave signals might be more dangerous than traditional frequencies; and that the larger number of access points, some potentially much closer to people's homes, might expose people to more radiation than 4G services. But millimeter waves aren't the only, or even the main, way that carriers will deliver 5G service. T-Mobile offers the most widespread 5G service available today. But it uses a band of low frequencies originally used for broadcast television. Sprint, meanwhile, repurposed some of the "mid-band" spectrum it uses for 4G to provide 5G. Verizon and AT&T both offer millimeter-wave-based services, but they're only available in a handful of locations. The wireless industry is focused more on using mid- and low-band frequencies for 5G, because deploying a massive number of millimeter-wave access points will be time-consuming and expensive. In other words, 5G will continue using the same radio frequencies that have been used for decades for broadcast radio and television, satellite communications, mobile services, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth.
That's led to two fears: That the effects of millimeter-wave signals might be more dangerous than traditional frequencies; and that the larger number of access points, some potentially much closer to people's homes, might expose people to more radiation than 4G services. But millimeter waves aren't the only, or even the main, way that carriers will deliver 5G service. T-Mobile offers the most widespread 5G service available today. But it uses a band of low frequencies originally used for broadcast television. Sprint, meanwhile, repurposed some of the "mid-band" spectrum it uses for 4G to provide 5G. Verizon and AT&T both offer millimeter-wave-based services, but they're only available in a handful of locations. The wireless industry is focused more on using mid- and low-band frequencies for 5G, because deploying a massive number of millimeter-wave access points will be time-consuming and expensive. In other words, 5G will continue using the same radio frequencies that have been used for decades for broadcast radio and television, satellite communications, mobile services, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember about 20 years ago when people were concerned about the health effects of new cell phones, during the switch to digital.
Slashdot was filled with morons bleeting about how it was "proven safe" (you prove positive claims, not negative ones, d'oh!) but then later it turned out the stuff they were pointing at to "prove" it was safe was stuff that is just below the limit for harm, and indeed, the new cell phones were found to be mildly dangerous when used for long hours. That was before SMS got popula
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, anything is possible. There is a reason sane places don't make ANY claim that even hints at a health association without at least disclaiming they aren't doctors and nothing they've said should be construed as making a health claim or medical advice. Even if you explicitly saying something contrary to that statement you at least do it under the blanket of the disclaimer FFS or you have no defense at all if some random guy gets mouth cancer and can pay a doctor to say radiation can contribute to i
Re:Ms. Mash just invited a lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
That's something that effects everyone.
Not being able to accurately track and watch hurricanes is only one thing we risk being lost if this is implemented in the wrong fashion (apparently the track we are on right now from what I"ve read).
And I've yet to hear the real tangible benefit..I mean as I understand it, you can really get the benefits of 5G unless you are outside and in sight of a tower.
Being that most folks on phones and anything that could be IoT except for vehicles are indoors and that 5G doesn't pass through walls really...what good is 5G going to do for most people?
Is it worth the risk to our weather forecasting capabilities being set back a number of decades?
Mod parent up (Score:1)
The powers-that-be blew it when they exchanged high-speed-quarter-mile-or-less cell coverage for some for less reliable weather forecasts many more.
Re: (Score:2)
Not being able to accurately track and watch hurricanes
I'll start being concerned about that when Verizon start deploying mm-band microbases with 200m range in the middle of the gulf of mexico. Given how most aren't even deploying them where people are, it's kind of a stretch to worry about our wonderful ISPs providing high speed internet to the middle of nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how weather modelling works. It isn't that local.
Which way a weather pattern, like a hurricane, goes depends largely on what happens in other places.
What you're talking about is only tracking where it is right now. That's not even hard. What matters is what happens when it gets close to civilization, and that does indeed depend on knowing weather details right there, at civilization. You know, all those cities and communities and stuff. With cell towers.
Sure, hurricanes that never come close to l
Don't blame Ms. Mash (Score:1)
The TFA over on Wired was written by Klint Finley.
context (Score:1)
The post I was replying to started off "Is that professional advice, Ms. Mash?"
It did not start off "Is this Slashdot-worthy, Ms. Mash?"
The content was written by a third party. If you want to judge the content itself, such as by asking if it is "professional advice," address the content creator.
If you want to say that it has no place on Slashdot, address the editor who posted it.
Cancer not the main concern (Score:2)
Give it 20 years where everyone has the same form of "rare" jaw cancer because that microwave radiation just so happened to cause a subharmonic mixing
Actually I would be more concerned about the heating effect than the cancer effect. The reason that your microwave oven cannot turn on when the door is open has nothing to do with concerns about cancer. Unlike radio waves, microwaves can penetrate your body or other objects and cause internal heating. They can also be reflected and focussed by metal. So depending on the transmitted power, frequency and the configuration of nearby buildings there could be health and safety concerns but more related to cooki
Re:Cancer not the main concern (Score:5, Informative)
Give it 20 years where everyone has the same form of "rare" jaw cancer because that microwave radiation just so happened to cause a subharmonic mixing
Yeah, that's pretty much what everybody said twenty years ago: Brain cancers are going to skyrocket in twenty years because of all the people using cell phones! And guess what? The predicted barrage of cancers didn't happen. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/images/cancer_2020/brain_other_cns_incidence.jpg [cdc.gov]
Actually I would be more concerned about the heating effect than the cancer effect.
Yep. There are no known nonthermal biological effects of RF. But heating, yes, RF can cause heating.
But it turns out for most of the body this isn't a problem, because blood circulation works very well as a heat exchanger, and mammals have very good thermal regulation (you can stand out in the direct sunshine on a sunny day and absorb a kilowatt per square meter of direct insolation, and if the temperature outside isn't both hot and humid, it's fine.)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29709736 [nih.gov]
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones [cancer.gov]
Re: Cancer not the main concern (Score:2)
That chart you link to combines all "brain and other CNS" cancers into one data point over time. One or more specific brain tumors (and cancers) however may be correlated with cellular phone radiation; glioma is a candidate here.
Interesting. If some specific types of cancer incidences rise, but the accumulation of all cancer incidences remain the same, does that imply a partially protective effect by cellphones?
Re: (Score:2)
mammals have very good thermal regulation (you can stand out in the direct sunshine on a sunny day and absorb a kilowatt per square meter of direct insolation
True, but buildings can reflect and focus [bbc.com] that to get more dangerous levels. With sunlight the effect is on the skin where we can easily feel it and move. Plus we can see it and probably decide not to stand in the focus of it!
Microwaves are not quite the same though. You cannot see them so you will not be aware of any focal points and the heating effect will probably be at some depth into the body and so perhaps not as easy to feel? While the power levels should be a lot less - and perhaps low enough t
Heating is unlikely to be a concern (Score:1)
Even in mmWave G5 towers, the power levels are low enough that heating will rarely be a concern.
Hypothetically, there could be some issues where reflections combine in bad ways, particularly where there is something acting like a parabolic mirror, but even then, its not likely to cause damage to things that move around a lot, like people. I wouldn't be surprised to see anecdotes about things like signs or benches very close to a tower showing signs of "hot spots" like small patches of faded paint if they h
But but but (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When a mobile tower was erected in my town\
Key word is "erected." The harm is caused by having the tower visible, even if not powered. It can mitigating by disguising it as a tree. Interestingly, even if on close inspection it is obviously a cell tower, most of the harm will still be mitigated. Interestingly, it is the perceived ability to go and view that tower that causes the symptoms, not even knowledge of the presence of the tower.
I'm a lot more worried about the transmitters in the phones, as those are the ones that are mobile and can be placed
Re: (Score:1)
If my fire alarm kept going off and waking me up, I'd probably suffer headaches, hallucinations, vomiting, and dizziness too.
On a more serious note, either 1) something was very wrong with that tower/it was not transmitting according to its license, 2) there was something besides the tower involved creating a dangerous environment in your home, or 3) you are a statistical outlier.
By statistical outlier, I mean if you had a representative sample of 1000 random people spend two weeks in your home and the cell
Re: (Score:1)
No one [amongst the chattering class] cares about the medical effects on the far end of the Bell Curve
True as long as society perceives a net benefit to itself despite the harm to a very few. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
On the other hand, if there were almost no benefit to society, and a few had serious harm so the net benefit to society was a net harm, and those who were hurt badly by a government mandate raised a stink about a government mandate, the public would likely say "um, why are we making everyone do this when it serves almost no useful purpose and it actually hurts some
Spergs... SMDH'ing... (Score:1)
There's no end to the damage you psychopathic nihilists would wreak if you ever got your hands on the reins of power.
Re: (Score:2)
'Because', not 'and' (Score:2)
When a mobile tower was erected in my town I started suffering headaches, hallucinations, vomiting, dizziness, and the constant beeping of my fire alarm kept me awake all night
Replace 'and' with 'because' in your sentence above and I think you'll have cause and effect properly assigned.
Re: (Score:2)
and the constant beeping of my fire alarm kept me awake all night because it was connecting to the 5G network, causing it to overheat!
More likely it just wanted you to replace its battery.
Drag it like a dog (Score:2)
So corporations, dragging butt creating many short-range towers, which is where the real 5g speed lives because you only tie up a single frequency locally instead of city-wide, is a feature, not a bug!
*alleged* (Score:1)
tooooootally safe (Score:1)
I LOVE constant exposure to microwave radiation, you insensitive clods!
"I LOVE constant exposure to microwave rad..." (Score:1)
I LOVE constant exposure to microwave radiation, you insensitive clods!
Is that astroturfer speaking, or is he testing out the smarty-pants module in his AI slashdot-posting-bot that he's got running on his homebrew-firmware router which uses, you guessed it, radios in the microwave frequency band.
I ask, because it's my understanding that most AI-equipped WiFi routers really do love constant exposure to microwave radiation as long as it is in particular frequencies and can be decoded as a properly-formatted WiFi transmission. They also love to expose others to similar radiatio
Re: "I LOVE constant exposure to microwave rad..." (Score:1)
Oh, give it up, toadie. Your Narrative is stale. No one believes you. No one wants what you're selling.
It's Just RF (Score:5, Informative)
Even millimeter band energy is still just radio frequency, and is not ionizing radiation that causes DNA damage and kills cells. The only hazard is heating effects if one is directly absorbing tens or hundreds of watts in a small area. There has never been a reproducible study that has shown any cancer or other health risk from non-ionizing RF energy, even though radio has been around for over 100 years.
Re: (Score:3)
"just" radio frequency? Its EM, just like x-rays and uv
Yes, and snowflakes are just particles, so getting hit by a snowflake is just like getting hit by a rifle bullet.
But people don't get damaged by getting hit by a snowflake, because the energy per particle is too low to do any damage.
Re: (Score:1)
sub-ionizing can still damage molecules (Score:1)
There has never been a reproducible study that has shown any cancer or other health risk from non-ionizing RF energy
It wasn't cancer and I'm not sure if the study has been reproduced, but one study did show negative health effects on the skin from visible light. It found that visible-light radiation from the sun produced "reactive oxygen species," which the study points out are a "primary factor in skin damage." It also found other effects.
The study pointed out that the damage found was beyond that done by thermal causes.
You can read the whole thing here: Leibel, et al, "Irradiation of Skin with Visible Light Induces R [jidonline.org]
Slight correction (Score:1)
I didn't see where you said "RF" energy. My post above doesn't apply to RF energy, but then again, RF energy is non-ionizing by definition, assuming you meant the sub-infrared frequencies used for radio.
So, you are likely correct about the lack of any repeatable study.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you. This is the only scientifically accurate comment so far.
Re:It's Just RF (Score:4, Interesting)
There has never been a reproducible study that has shown any cancer or other health risk from non-ionizing RF energy, even though radio has been around for over 100 years.
Not the case - you are just looking in the wrong place. Search for radar operators and health issues. There are well known ones, though you are right that cancer is NOT ONE of them.
Nearly all people who have worked with old radars have a very similar spectrum of illnesses - mostly joints, locomotor issues and cardiovascular issues. Both my mom (who has worked with a radar for 30 years) and all of her ex-colleagues carry the same catalogue of illnesses.
You need to keep in mind however, that an old met or AA radar used to be in the 1KW range, have virtually zero screening and no protection for the operator. Nobody is allowed anywhere near anything like this any more. For example, when my mom's radar was upgraded shortly before she retired, it became operated over a 5km fiber link - nobody was allowed at the actual transmitter any more.
As far as the 5G, the propaganda machine against it is working in full swing for a completely different reason - it is operating in frequencies where anyone with enough math acumen can use it as the illumination component in a passive radar to detect Stealth aircraft: https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
The frequencies in question are refarmed from TV and other mobile tech which operated at MUCH HIGHER powers than any 5G so if they were dangerous we would all be sprouting a 3rd arm ten times by now. By the way Much higher is like 1W compared to 1KW you have on a radar.
Do those 'studies' account for aggregation? (Score:2)
Wired is an industry joke, /. is the punchline (Score:2)
Cell Tower Story (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a story a co-worker of mine liked to tell about when he worked at a cell tower installation company.
They had a standard plan for rolling out new towers in residential areas. They'd prep the site, build the tower, get all the equipment installed and tested, wire up power, then wait a few months.
Inevitably they'd get dragged into a city council meeting with residents complaining about headaches, problems with their TV, problems with garage door openers, their pets going crazy, etc...
Then the tower company would tell the council that the tower hadn't been turned on yet and provide the records as such. They just turned the aircraft warning lights on, none of the radios were active. Some residents would be incredulous, and they'd offer a tour of the equipment room to show them that nothing is on.
The council would dismiss the hearing, and the tower company would go ahead bring the tower up. The roughly three month delay was factored into the planning of every site the company did. They'd take bets on the categories of complaints that they would get.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to spin "5G deployments in the US won't actually use the spectrum that would be needed to get any of the consumer benefits from 5G" into a positive. Hey, since your 5G will be BS (something they coded an option for in the spec after learning their lessons from 4G's BS non-spec implementation) the health concerns from actual 5G that provides the benefits being used to sell you don't apply!
Yes, US 5G deployment will be BS. What is being implemented lowers costs for carriers and they are skipping the parts which would actually benefit you. Meanwhile, since those parts are part of the spec they are touting them as 5G brings all these benefits to actually get you to pay outrageously more for that service which reduces their costs enabling them to make hefty profit gains on both ends, reducing costs AND raising prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to spin "5G deployments in the US won't actually use the spectrum that would be needed to get any of the consumer benefits from 5G" into a positive.
There will be a benefit due to some of the other changes between 4G and 5G.
So it will be faster, just not as fast as higher-frequency 5G can do.
Re: (Score:1)
What’s it like to be relentlessly negative about new technologies?
It’s too bad you thought you were entitled to some amazing ideal 5G launch personally tailored to your specific emotional needs. Some of the rest of us will just wait and see and try to use the new stuff when it's available to us at an acceptable price. Then we'll be happy instead of bitter about not getting what every other person in the world owes us as Internet complainers.
Re: (Score:2)
"What’s it like to be relentlessly negative about new technologies?"
I'm not, I'm relentlessly pro consumer, geek, hacker, maker, decentralization, and advancement. As in actual technological advancement, more flexibility, privacy, power, options, user/owner control and empowerment. If it seems otherwise it is because the technology companies today are in general relentlessly opposed to those things.
"It’s too bad you thought you were entitled to some amazing ideal 5G launch personally tailored to
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't actually buy it yet and you're already bitter about not getting what you didn't pay for yet. And you're already giving yourself kudos for being smarter than the others who didn't buy anything — those people sure are dumb for what you think they might do but haven't done yet.
Re: (Score:2)
won't actually use the spectrum that would be needed to get any of the consumer benefits from 5G
The fact that you think this shows you understand nothing at all about 5G. There are many benefits to users, the least exciting is the potential for higher speeds at higher frequencies. Cell congestion management, better efficiency, better radios, higher subscriber count, to say nothing of the fact that by having support for 5G you will guarantee you're at least on 3GPP R15, which means you may actually get features available on 4G which your carrier simply hasn't bothered providing for you. I for one know
Poison (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes one break.
If it only took one break, you'd already be dead.
What it takes is a break, the failure of multiple DNA repair mechanisms to deal with that break, the failure of the cell's "self-destruct" mechanisms, and the failure of the immune system to destroy the cell.
There's a hell of a lot of things in the natural environment that cause DNA damage. Including the big yellow thing in the sky every single day. Which is why we're not nearly as fragile as you imply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't die of cancer at 70 if you died from a heart attack at 50. Or less flippantly, as our ability to treat other fatal diseases improves, more and more people are going to die of cancer because they didn't die of something else first.
I inherited my grandfather's super-high blood pressure. He died of a heart attack in his 50s. In the intervening decades, we've developed a collection of drugs that I take to keep my blood pressure normal, so it's way, way, way, way, way less likely that I'll have a heart
Re: (Score:2)
I found that just massaging my neck for a few minutes can drop my blood pressure by 10%. Weird; the experiments continue...
DON'T BE (Score:3)
nervously laughing as I begin folding my tinfoil hat
Elementary... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you play around with the law of inverse squares there's no harm to be found here.
By the time you are 20 feet away from a transmitter with an ERP of 20 watts you are absorbing roughly 0.0019 watts of EM energy.
Considering the state of Texas receives roughly 696 TERAWATTS of energy (which includes ionizing radiation) from a sunny day- I think we're safe.
You should be concerned. (Score:2)
When someone tells you unprompted that you shouldn't be concerned then it's more than likely you should be concerned.
Frankly, I'm still concerned about 5G interfering with our weather satellites [slashdot.org] and this "nothing to see here" article seems like another red flag in it's own right.
Re: You should be concerned. (Score:1)
I am concerned about the exponentially greater bandwidth at the disposal of our surveillance overlords. This won't all be just so people can stream more Netflix. The amount of telemetry that can be performed will greatly increase.
Re: (Score:2)
When someone tells you unprompted
It's not unprompted. There's a growing chorus of anti-science people shouting that cell phones will kill us all. Among other insanity like anti-vaxx and flat Earth.
Precious.... Bodily.... Fluids...... (Score:2)
LOL (Score:2)
"Don't trust us? Trust us."
Fuck off. 5G is trash for many reasons.
Can't Make Money on "Don't Worry" (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if there's an actual danger or not.
What matters is how they can make money off people's fears, whether real or imagined.
Don't worry (Score:2)
At one point, they sold x-ray machines to x-ray your feet in the shoe-shop so you could see if your kid's shoes actually fit...
That was just a harmless party-trick after all....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Test it first. (Score:2)
There is a MUCH more dangerous radiation source! (Score:2)
It is up to a 1000 times stronger, actually causes your body to heat up becausse it can be so stro g, has been *proven* to cause cancer and literal radiation burns from kicking electrons off of atoms! Countless people die from it every year!
You knoe what it is called?
THE SUN!
*ba-dum ... TISS*
(So much for being afraid of "electrosmog".)
Not really, no. (Score:3)
Worried About 5G's Health Effects?
No
Don't Be
OK then.
A Good Example of Sophistry (Score:1)
The rhetoric of this piece is troubling. It starts out by asserting there's "little reason" to think these frequencies might be more harmful than, say light; and besides, they won't be used that much anyway, at least for a while. Both suggestions neatly sidestep factual discussion.
(p>The next paragraph moves on to name the real issue: higher exposure levels, from devices that are physically closer to people. But the argument sidesteps this also, explaining that not all transmission technologies actually
Re: (Score:1)
Don't be! (Score:2)
4G is already doing it's damages!
Fine-grit Sandpaper Toilet Paper (Score:1)
https://www.chicagotribune.com... [chicagotribune.com]
This mirrors the same safety guideline logic as food (and other industries). One portion/use is no cause for concern, but standard practice tells us that repeated daily use paints a very different picture.
I'm pretty sure pattern matching algos will
I'm worried about (Score:1)
it's CCP effects
Why would I be worried? (Score:2)
It's not like carriers are actually doing anything other than hoarding spectrum and milking 5G hype for all its worth.
Anxiety kills (Score:3)
I'm also reminded of a friend of mine who claims that he can see into infrared wavelengths and that TV remotes give him an eyestrain headache. So one day I covertly removed the batteries from one of the remotes, pointed it at him, then called his name so he'd turn around, while I pressed the buttons very obviously. He literally experienced pain in his eyes, got mad at me for doing that. Then I pulled the battery cover off and showed him there were no batteries in the remote, therefore no IR at all. He got a little confused, humiliated, muttered some things about 'residual charge' (which is nonsense) and that was that.
The takeaway if you haven't got it already is the link I posted above, plus the anecdotes others have posted: anxiety can cause physical symptoms. You can even get actually ill from anxiety alone, as it messes with your immune system. Even cell towers that physically exist but that aren't even powered on give people 'symptoms'.
Run studies, prove it to be safe. (Score:2)
The only way to really know what the health effects are is to study it. So before they can use the 10+ ghz stuff it should be tested on rats.
As it mentioned some frequencies being used are existing broadcast frequencies. But it is absurd and misleading no one should be concerned over the 10-40 ghz stuff because the plans are that can be implemented. There are differences such as the way it can be generated as more of a beam rather than a wide field. It also absorbs differently, some of these frequen
it's not about cancer, it's about jamming the body (Score:1)
Something Fishy... (Score:2)
Brought to you by... (Score:1)