# Health Impacts of 5G technology **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 9, 2019, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728 "2019-05-09T15:43:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/21 "2019-05-09T22:04:24Z")
> [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > What the hell is P-hacking? Obligatory XKCD link: [xkcd: Significant](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. ---
**Author:** ![Cleophus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e57/32.png) [@Cleophus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cleophus)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/22 "2019-05-09T22:46:26Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/23 "2019-05-09T23:00:50Z")
> [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/24 "2019-05-09T23:17:12Z")
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](https://xkcd.com/1132/). ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/25 "2019-05-10T01:14:50Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/26 "2019-05-10T03:38:05Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![GESancMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gesancman/32/2923_2.png) [@GESancMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GESancMan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/27 "2019-05-10T03:48:56Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > At least they are not stuck in their ways, like the Delegates Of Georgia Medical Association. _Applause_ ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/28 "2019-05-10T03:50:44Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/29 "2019-05-10T04:08:46Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/30 "2019-05-10T04:51:28Z")
Here are some of my thoughts on the page linked to in the OP. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/31 "2019-05-10T10:30:50Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/32 "2019-05-10T15:36:05Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/33 "2019-05-10T15:48:04Z")
I read an [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/smarter-living/wirecutter/dont-buy-a-5g-phone-yet.html) 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? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/34 "2019-05-10T16:27:16Z")
> [@](#): > > 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations)! So there! ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/35 "2019-05-10T18:05:44Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I read an [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/smarter-living/wirecutter/dont-buy-a-5g-phone-yet.html) 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? > [@](#): > > 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: [2016 United States wireless spectrum auction - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_reallocation#Broadcast_incentive_auction) ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/36 "2019-05-10T18:17:41Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/37 "2019-05-10T19:57:24Z")
You can, however, send Internet traffic via [carrier pigeon](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149). ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/38 "2019-05-10T20:29:34Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I read an [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/smarter-living/wirecutter/dont-buy-a-5g-phone-yet.html) 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](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#New_radio_frequencies)–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! ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/39 "2019-05-10T22:19:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You can, however, send Internet traffic via [carrier pigeon](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149). Has any research been done on the health impacts? ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728/40 "2019-05-10T22:51:42Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-impacts-of-5g-technology/833728.md?page=3)