Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:43 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,227

Health Impacts of 5G technology


Wireless carriers will claim that the tech is safe. Others say no. The FCC promulgated rules around what limits local municipalities are allowed to enact - seeming accepting at face value that there aren't detrimental health impacts.

Are there any documented negative health impacts of widespread 5G technology deployments?
  #2  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:36 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
No.
  #3  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:09 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,550
Whenever this type of topic comes up, i see comments that state "because it's non-ionizing radiation, there can't be any DNA impact thus no cancer danger."

But, there have been papers recently showing a biological impact through reactive oxygen species.

I think the answer is that the science is not settled on the full impact of low energy rf radiation on biological systems.

Last edited by RaftPeople; 05-09-2019 at 01:10 PM.
  #4  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:11 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,442
No.
  #5  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:31 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
Quite Correct.
  #6  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:35 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Are there any documented negative health impacts of widespread 5G technology deployments?
It is difficult to test the effects of widespread 5G technology until it becomes widespread. There are certainly some studies that indicate that this type of radiation may have harmful effects.
  #7  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:42 PM
sitchensis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: revillagigedo
Posts: 2,713
I'm sure they contribute to a vague set of symptoms that seemingly elude scientists because that can only be cured by a completely different therapy every 8 to 10 months. The biggest problem in treatment is one of the most prevalent symptoms, in that as soon as any symptoms return, the old therapies are forgotten about and a completely new one has to be found
  #8  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:56 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
It is difficult to test the effects of widespread 5G technology until it becomes widespread. There are certainly some studies that indicate that this type of radiation may have harmful effects.
Cite?
  #9  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:56 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
It is difficult to test the effects of widespread 5G technology until it becomes widespread. There are certainly some studies that indicate that this type of radiation may have harmful effects.
None that aren't exercises in P-hacking.
  #10  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:08 PM
Surreal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,201
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...143?via%3Dihub

Quote:
Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646

Quote:
5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects. It is argued that the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives. Radiofrequency radiation (RF) is increasingly being recognized as a new form of environmental pollution. Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated.
  #11  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:15 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,442
I see nothing other than "weasel words" in both those quotes.
  #12  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:21 PM
sitchensis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: revillagigedo
Posts: 2,713
The second one was written by a practicing plastic surgeon who "has authored many policy resolutions related to reducing environmental toxins at the California Medical Association House of Delegates."

I'm still not sure why the California Medical Association House of Delegates has so many toxins
  #13  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:26 PM
Surreal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
I see nothing other than "weasel words" in both those quotes.
This is GQ, not IMHO. No one cares about your opinion.
  #14  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:28 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surreal View Post
This is GQ, not IMHO. No one cares about your opinion.
Then, you'd better post some facts, and not someone else's opinion...
  #15  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:28 PM
GaryM's Avatar
GaryM is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO 50mi. West
Posts: 5,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitchensis View Post
The second one was written by a practicing plastic surgeon who "has authored many policy resolutions related to reducing environmental toxins at the California Medical Association House of Delegates."



I'm still not sure why the California Medical Association House of Delegates has so many toxins
Because they don't colon cleanse every two weeks?
__________________
GaryM
  #16  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:35 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitchensis View Post
I'm still not sure why the California Medical Association House of Delegates has so many toxins
At least they are not stuck in their ways, like the Delegates Of Georgia Medical Association.
  #17  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:52 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,265
Fact 1: The studies showing perceived health effects of perceived exposure to high frequency EM radiation show highly significant results.

Fact 2: There are no changes in population health over the last four decades with increasing radiation that can plausibly be linked to that radiation.

Fact 3: The higher the frequencies involved, the closer we get to the area where The Sun is the most significant source, and people have to start dragging in the modulation of the signal.

Fact 4: To argue scientific evidence for radio frequency EM being a danger one has to cherry pick studies and/or claim specific elements of current technology haven't been studied sufficiently.

The existence of facts 1-3 should make one weary of those engaging in the exercises described in fact 4. Yes there are studies showing all sort of effects of _lab_ setups exposing mice or cells in vitro to radio frequency EM. But there is all sorts of reasons to believe these are research artifacts and/or do not represent a real world health hazard.
  #18  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:38 PM
Tatterdemalion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 590
Exactly correct.

Except the fact one. Which isn't true at all. The studies cited up thread are either P-hacking or opinion pieces.

Last edited by Tatterdemalion; 05-09-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #19  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:47 PM
Reply's Avatar
Reply is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,488
Even at the worst case, supposing there are provable impacts low levels of from non-ionizing RF... wouldn't it still be several orders of magnitude less harmful than, say, obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, skin cancer, anti-vax, flying in airplanes, living near power plants, spending time in traffic, eating too much red meat... if public health is the concern, what good is going after the fringes?

If, say, 5G can help smarter cars network and better avoid each other, prevented traffic deaths alone would probably dramatically outweigh any miniscule impact from a little bit more wireless. Or if it can improve urban air quality through smarter grids. Etc.
  #20  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:47 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
None that aren't exercises in P-hacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
Exactly correct.

Except the fact one. Which isn't true at all. The studies cited up thread are either P-hacking or opinion pieces.
What the hell is P-hacking?
  #21  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:04 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
What the hell is P-hacking?
Obligatory XKCD link: https://xkcd.com/882/

An event of low probability will occur with a likelihood approaching unity if given enough trials. This is true for anything, even scientific studies. That is, given enough scientific studies, some will make unlikely conclusions.
  #22  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:46 PM
Cleophus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,356
P-hacking is when you, with or without deceitful intent, engage in unsound experimental and statistical practices that have the result of drastically increasing the likelihood of false positives with the goal of achieving an experimental result that passes some desired statistical significance test.

The XKCD example is a simple one. To be sound, the multiple comparisons need to be taken into account. The simplest (known as a Bonferroni correction) is dividing the acceptable p-value (0.05 in this example) by the number of test ( in this case 20), to obtain a more stringent cutoff of 0.0025. With this correction, the likelihood of obtaining a false positive experience in the XKCD example is much lower. Repeating a experiment until a positive result occurs and promoting that is also called cherry picking, which is exactly what Surreal is doing in this thread.

Other types of p-hacking include deciding on p-value cutoffs or creating hypotheses after instead of before obtaining results (thus opening you to confirmation bias), stopping a pre-planned series of trials once a significant result occurs instead of running all the trials.

Lastly, when scientists report on statistical significance, it means only that the observed result was unlikely (but not impossible) to occur by random chance. It doesn’t mean the observed effect is significant in practical terms (aka effect size)

Last edited by Cleophus; 05-09-2019 at 05:50 PM.
  #23  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:00 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
Exactly correct.

Except the fact one. Which isn't true at all. The studies cited up thread are either P-hacking or opinion pieces.
"Perceived health effects of perceived EM exposure", i.e. people do report symptoms when they think they are exposed, no p-hacking required. Of course I should have been more explicit about the point of that fact being that these studies do _not_ show a correlation between the symptoms and _actual_ EM exposure.
  #24  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:17 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,743
Another point to keep in mind about significance levels: The statement "this result would only happen 5% of the time if the hypothesis were false" does not mean the same thing as "there is a 95% chance that the hypothesis is true". That second statement is usually the one you want, but to get a statement like that, you have to have some sort of prior on how likely you'd consider the hypothesis without the data.

And of course, there's an XKCD for that, too.
  #25  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:14 PM
dzeiger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Frisco, Tx
Posts: 1,654
Quote:
It is argued that the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation
5G isn't a frequency, it's a technology that runs at various frequencies, including the same ones current cell phones are operating at. T-Mobile, for example, will be starting by deploying 5G on the 600 MHz band, which isn't "high frequency" by pretty much any reasonable definition.

Now, there is a higher frequency band that 5G can, in theory, run on, I'm not certain how well that will go in practice (given that I believe it requires antennas every couple hundred meters). But if there are health concerns there, I would think it'd have to be specific to that frequency range--that is, broadcasting anything on those bands would be bad, not anything particularly specific to 5G.
  #26  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:38 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,227
Is it fair to say there is not evidence of the safety of 5g tech? From what I gather it seems the data is inconclusive. I've read some cites that say it's negative, hut I can't follow the discussion so I'm not sure if I'm reading the equivalent of anti vax stuff or it's legit.

Like the link in the OP that claims 5G is dangerous - is that bunk? If it is, how is that demonstrated?
  #27  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:48 PM
GESancMan's Avatar
GESancMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
At least they are not stuck in their ways, like the Delegates Of Georgia Medical Association.
*Applause*
  #28  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:50 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,860
The link in the OP is bunk. It's basically saying flashlights are dangerous because solar power plants can produce so much heat that they can melt salt.

The effects that are listed are absolutely true. Millimeter waves do not penetrate far into tissues, and this has been taken advantage of by RF active denial systems. Basically, they use radio waves to heat up the top layer of your skin which makes you feel a burning sensation.

On a similar note, a 2.4 GHz microwave can explode an egg. 2.4 GHz radio waves can cook meat, so clearly they can cause severe tissue damage. But holding a 2.4 GHz cordless phone next to your ear for long enough to actually reach a live human being at Comcast customer service won't boil your brain or cause any other damage to your body.

Millimeter waves can cause burns, and, as with other lower frequency radio waves, your eyes and testicles tend to be particularly sensitive to damage. But no one is talking about using that high of a power level with 5G's higher frequency bands (up to about 85 GHz or so IIRC).
  #29  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:08 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
On a similar note, a 2.4 GHz microwave can explode an egg. 2.4 GHz radio waves can cook meat, so clearly they can cause severe tissue damage. But holding a 2.4 GHz cordless phone next to your ear for long enough to actually reach a live human being at Comcast customer service won't boil your brain or cause any other damage to your body.

And 2.4GHz is also, of course, the frequency of Wi-Fi.
  #30  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:51 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,860
Here are some of my thoughts on the page linked to in the OP.

Quote:
Military uses have also been discussed.
This is a networking protocol we're talking about here, not a weapon. The whole point of this particular sentence seems to introduce an "ooh scary" tone. OH MY GOD THE MILITARY IS LOOKING AT USING THIS! Yeah, the military uses pencils too on occasion. That doesn't mean a pencil is a deadly military weapon. Adding this sentence was completely irresponsible and misleading on the part of the author.

Quote:
This 5th generation (5G) system uses high frequency electromagnetic radiation with Gigahertz (GHz) wavelengths in the millimeter range. These high frequency tiny wavelengths penetrate only the outer layer of the skin, unlike 2G, 3G and 4G technology which passes through the body.
This isn't true. The comparatively lower frequencies of 2G, 3G, and 4G are all absorbed by the human body. They just aren't absorbed as completely in the upper layers of the skin like millimeter waves are.

Quote:
Major health concerns with exposure to 5G are to skin, eye and adverse systemic metabolic signaling through skin sensors, as well as heat effects.
Absolutely true for the frequencies that 5G uses. Not so true for the power levels that they are planning on using. Millimeter waves are too low in frequency to be ionizing, so the concerns for the human body are exactly what are listed - heat damage to skin, and damage to eyes (and testicles, but they don't mention that - for women, ovaries are too far internal to be easily damaged, so it's only us guys that have to worry). Safety standards for radio waves are built around how much they heat the human body.

Crank up the power, and that's basically how active denial systems work. They use millimeter waves to heat up your skin to the point of causing pain, and possibly minor burns.

Quote:
Some in Congress have seriously questioned the lack of independent research on 5G safety.
So? Some on Congress have seriously questioned the theory of evolution. This is another strongly misleading statement implying that there is something bad here when it's not actually saying anything bad at all. Again, irresponsible and misleading on the part of the author.

Quote:
New research by Neufeld and Kuster 2018 highlights the significant tissue heating generated by 5G technology with rapid short bursts of data transfer on a device, prompting them to call for reevaluation of thermal safety standards (let alone biological standards). The researchers state, “The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.”
The bit about peak-to-average is meaningless. Maybe it is based on something real, but as written, it doesn't say anything useful. Overall, this paragraph is saying that someone thinks they are allowing the power levels to be too high, and maybe someone should look at the standards again. Note that it isn't saying conclusively that the power levels are too high, just that someone thinks they might be and they should take a closer look at it. Again, written in such a way as to imply something much worse than what they are actually saying.

Quote:
In addition, there is convincing emerging scientific evidence causing great concern for the environment, with harm to mammals, insects and bacteria, prompting scientists around the world to call for a moratorium on 5G.
What evidence?

Quote:
This 5G technology is complex, likely to be costly, accompanied by privacy concerns and will also consume significant amounts of energy, contrary to global climate goals.
Complete and utter bullshit.

Of course it's more complex. We aren't sending signals with two hamsters using semaphore flags. Technology is always improving.

Privacy concerns? No more so than wi-fi. The author seems to be grasping at straws, throwing anything scary-sounding into the mix.

Faster data rates do tend to equate to more energy used, but painting this as somehow being devastating to the earth's climate is downright laughable.

Quote:
An older Russian paper, “Biological Effects of Millimeter Wavelengths” by Zalyubovskaya (1977) was declassified by the CIA in 2012. This paper disturbingly describes the research on both humans and animals showing a myriad of adverse effects of millimeter wavelengths. The author notes that millimeter wave technology had been used for years without any studies on biological effects. The researchers found that “millimeter waves caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes in the blood and bone marrow composition, and changes in the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration…and nuclear metabolism. The degree of unfavorable effect of millimeter waves depended the duration of radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.”
No shit, Sherlock. Pretty much any frequency of electromagnetic radiation can damage the human body if you crank the power level up high enough. Just because you can fry an ant with a magnifying glass doesn't mean that flashlights are inherently dangerous.

Quote:
Risks from 5G include:

Damage to the eyes- cataracts, retina
Immune system disruption
Metabolic disruption
Damage to sperm
Skin damage
Collapse of insect populations, the base of food for birds and bats
Rise in bacterial resistance and bacterial shifts
Damage to plants and trees
Hey, they finally mentioned testicles! Well, sperm at least. They missed an opportunity here. If you have the power level cranked up high enough to damage your eyes, your testicles (and not just the sperm) can also be damaged.

That is an accurate list for the dangers of millimeter waves, but to put it in perspective, wi-fi frequencies have pretty much the exact same list of risks. That's why they keep the power level low.

Quote:
This means that the human population as well as pets and other species will be exposed to an even larger mix of frequencies continuously inside and outside the home.
Absolutely true. And that even larger mix of frequencies is basically harmless. Sunlight, on the other hand, is significantly more harmful.

That's as far as I feel like going, but that should give you an idea of the level of bullshit on that page.
  #31  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:30 AM
Colophon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire, England
Posts: 13,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post

On a similar note, a 2.4 GHz microwave can explode an egg. 2.4 GHz radio waves can cook meat, so clearly they can cause severe tissue damage. But holding a 2.4 GHz cordless phone next to your ear for long enough to actually reach a live human being at Comcast customer service won't boil your brain or cause any other damage to your body.

I've seen breathless claims that 5G USES THE SAME FREQUENCY AS MICROWAVES ZOMG!!!!111.

Yeah, and red traffic lights use the same frequency as Dr Evil killer "laser" beams.

It's not the frequency you want to worry about, it's the power. And 5G uses considerably lower power transmitters than previous generations of mobile phone signals.

Last edited by Colophon; 05-10-2019 at 05:31 AM.
  #32  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:36 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
That's as far as I feel like going, but that should give you an idea of the level of bullshit on that page.
Thanks, ECG! This is really helpful. Since it's well outside my comfort zone it's hard to determine how accurate what I'm reading is and this contextualizes it really well.
  #33  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:48 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,040
I read an article about the 5G rollout (and why you shouldn't rush to buy a 5G phone just yet) and it said that the major carriers are deploying 5G using millimeter wave spectrum but that this doesn't penetrate buildings well, so indoor antennas will be needed. What I'm wondering is what happened to the analog television spectrum that was auctioned off a few years ago? My experience was that this spectrum was pretty good at penetrating buildings (judging by the fact that a cheap pair of rabbit ears gave a pretty good picture). Wouldn't that spectrum be useful for mobile communications?

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 05-10-2019 at 10:48 AM.
  #34  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:27 AM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,880
Quote:
Collapse of insect populations, the base of food for birds and bats
Ha! This purported danger from 5G communications will never come to pass because we've already caused it through other means! So there!
  #35  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:05 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I read an article about the 5G rollout (and why you shouldn't rush to buy a 5G phone just yet) and it said that the major carriers are deploying 5G using millimeter wave spectrum but that this doesn't penetrate buildings well, so indoor antennas will be needed. What I'm wondering is what happened to the analog television spectrum that was auctioned off a few years ago? My experience was that this spectrum was pretty good at penetrating buildings (judging by the fact that a cheap pair of rabbit ears gave a pretty good picture). Wouldn't that spectrum be useful for mobile communications?
Quote:
T-Mobile paid almost $8 billion for 1,525 licenses representing 45 percent of low-band spectrum, giving the company coverage of the entire country and about four times the spectrum it had
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectr...entive_auction
  #36  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:17 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
We aren't sending signals with two hamsters using semaphore flags.
You are correct, of course.

But I would totally sign up for HamsterG communications.
  #37  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:57 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,743
You can, however, send Internet traffic via carrier pigeon.
  #38  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:29 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I read an article about the 5G rollout (and why you shouldn't rush to buy a 5G phone just yet) and it said that the major carriers are deploying 5G using millimeter wave spectrum but that this doesn't penetrate buildings well, so indoor antennas will be needed. What I'm wondering is what happened to the analog television spectrum that was auctioned off a few years ago? My experience was that this spectrum was pretty good at penetrating buildings (judging by the fact that a cheap pair of rabbit ears gave a pretty good picture). Wouldn't that spectrum be useful for mobile communications?

Not for high bandwidth communications, which is the only advantage that 5G is offering. The higher the frequency, the higher the bandwidth. UHF is 0.3 GHz to 3 GHz. 5G can reach far beyond that--the AT&T version is at 39 GHz. And yes, 5G has enormous technical problems, and unless future phones support dynamic switching between 5G and 4G, I expect 5G to be a boondoggle on a beyond New Cokeian magnitude. Tiny coverage map. Constantly dropped signals. The phones themselves have to have multiple antennas distributed throughout the phone because holding the phone blocks it from receiving the signal!
  #39  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:19 PM
TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You can, however, send Internet traffic via carrier pigeon.
Has any research been done on the health impacts?
  #40  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:51 PM
excavating (for a mind) is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a canyon, in a cavern
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
Has any research been done on the health impacts?
You know they have, they're just not telling us the results. You KNOW what that means.
  #41  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:14 PM
Arjuna34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek
The bit about peak-to-average is meaningless. Maybe it is based on something real, but as written, it doesn't say anything useful. Overall, this paragraph is saying that someone thinks they are allowing the power levels to be too high, and maybe someone should look at the standards again. Note that it isn't saying conclusively that the power levels are too high, just that someone thinks they might be and they should take a closer look at it. Again, written in such a way as to imply something much worse than what they are actually saying.
Peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) is a real thing for EEs designing RF power amplifiers. OFDM modulation produces signals that end up with a high peak power vs. average power. WiFi and 4G protocols are both based on OFDM, so this is nothing new. There's a lot of info online about PAPR and how to reduce it, but it's geared towards easing the burden on the engineers designing hardware, not for any real health reasons.

I'm not sure where the OP's link gets the "1000" PAPR ratio from, and the paper it links to talks about timescales of 30 seconds and longer. The peak power spikes are far shorter than that with OFDM (more like microseconds). Also, the proposed 5G protocols have a PAPR that's not much higher (if any) than 4G (e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPE4XNysSpM, good info unfortunately in video format).

Anyway, like engineer_comp_geek said, the page is bunk.
  #42  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:57 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjuna34 View Post
Peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) is a real thing for EEs designing RF power amplifiers. OFDM modulation produces signals that end up with a high peak power vs. average power. WiFi and 4G protocols are both based on OFDM, so this is nothing new. There's a lot of info online about PAPR and how to reduce it, but it's geared towards easing the burden on the engineers designing hardware, not for any real health reasons.
Yep, I definitely understand the concept. It's relating it to health issues that I can't find any meaningful connection with, at least not without some specific information about what either the peak or the average power level is. Stated alone like that, it seems kinda meaningless to me.
  #43  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:07 PM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 400
Yes, we know what it means when they don’t tell us about the health impact of IP-over-carrier-pigeon. It means the impact is guano.

Last edited by EdelweissPirate; 05-10-2019 at 08:07 PM.
  #44  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:09 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I read an article about the 5G rollout (and why you shouldn't rush to buy a 5G phone just yet) and it said that the major carriers are deploying 5G using millimeter wave spectrum but that this doesn't penetrate buildings well, so indoor antennas will be needed. What I'm wondering is what happened to the analog television spectrum that was auctioned off a few years ago? My experience was that this spectrum was pretty good at penetrating buildings (judging by the fact that a cheap pair of rabbit ears gave a pretty good picture). Wouldn't that spectrum be useful for mobile communications?
Not for high bandwidth communications, which is the only advantage that 5G is offering. The higher the frequency, the higher the bandwidth. UHF is 0.3 GHz to 3 GHz. 5G can reach far beyond that--the AT&T version is at 39 GHz. And yes, 5G has enormous technical problems, and unless future phones support dynamic switching between 5G and 4G, I expect 5G to be a boondoggle on a beyond New Cokeian magnitude. Tiny coverage map. Constantly dropped signals. The phones themselves have to have multiple antennas distributed throughout the phone because holding the phone blocks it from receiving the signal!
Thank you for the explanation. 5G sounds like it's going to require a lot of work to be ready for the market.
  #45  
Old 05-11-2019, 12:05 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,550
Here is a recent review of research related to biological impacts of non-ionizing radiation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...007?via%3Dihub
  #46  
Old 05-12-2019, 07:39 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,040
The New York Times has an article today that RT America, a Russian propaganda network, is trying to spread fears about 5G technology.
  #47  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:36 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
The New York Times has an article today that RT America, a Russian propaganda network, is trying to spread fears about 5G technology.
... and from what we have seen in this thread, it is a successful campaign. What is it we say on the Dope banner?
  #48  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:33 PM
Surreal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
Here is a recent review of research related to biological impacts of non-ionizing radiation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...007?via%3Dihub
Good info. Thanks.
  #49  
Old 05-13-2019, 01:54 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
What is it we say on the Dope banner?
The plane on the treadmill will take off! But that's not important right now...
  #50  
Old 05-13-2019, 07:12 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
The New York Times has an article today that RT America, a Russian propaganda network, is trying to spread fears about 5G technology.
Most interesting is that while RT is trying to tell us how horrible it is, Putin is busy rolling it out in Russia. When asked about this, an RT official said that they only worry about US things.

Putin saying it is bad pretty much ensures 5G is good.

I hope everyone remembers how cellphone were going to fry our brains.

Last edited by Voyager; 05-13-2019 at 07:14 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017