It doesn't help that there are mountains of cash at stake. Suppose scientists determined that 5G networks are harmful to people's health, what then? Are people gonna stop using cellphones? Are companies like T-Mobile and Verizon gonna just fold? Will governments pass legislation to ban this equipment? If there's truth to this, it won't come out full force for decades, like it was with smoking cigarettes.

>Suppose scientists determined that 5G networks are harmful to people's health, what then? Are people gonna stop using cellphones? Are companies like T-Mobile and Verizon gonna just fold?

Eh, they can just not roll out 5G?

The scientists in Australia determined that the Adani coal mine was unsafe or at the least uncertain but their findings were ignored and discredited because it would be a huge loss of profits in one company. The company was recently exposed demanding a list of names of each of the researchers so they could trawl over their social media profiles to discredit them.

How confident are you in that statement, given the vested interests involved and their track record for greed and dishonesty?

And Google could have decided to "just stay out of China" and avoid all the PR scandals.

But in the real world humans are too greedy for their own good. The first carriers to adopt 5G stand to make billions in extra revenue by charging people more for it or getting them to use more data for the same cost/GB.

You’ve got the incentives wrong here: if 5G was harmful, then telecom executives would not roll it out, because they and their families could not avoid it if they did.

This is similar to why smog and particulate air pollution got improved: because car and energy executives have to breathe air too.

You are right. This is also why the threat of global warming was nipped in the bud by thoughtful energy company executives. Their children have to live on earth too.

This is a fair shot and a strong counterexample.

> This is similar to why smog and particulate air pollution got improved:

Pretty sure it was do to legislation not the good will of executives. Greed is a hell of a drug.

- https://www.marketplace.org/2014/07/14/la-smog-battle-agains...

Perfect can be the enemy of good.

At least on the east coast, smog was improved considerably when the coal plants were finally allowed to update to newer tech.

The owners had wanted to update their plants for several years, but the EPA was preventing them from doing that unless they met an unrealistic target. So the plants continued to unnecessarily spew pollution because of the standoff. The EPA was finally overruled and the updates got the coal plants to about 95% of what the EPA wanted.

I'm 99% sure it wasn't energy executives that lobbied for the clean air act and on second read I feel like you might be being sarcastic

Can’t upvote this enough.

But basic issue is lack of a mechanism to execute a truly controlled study.

EG even within a single town population with 5G on every telephone pole there will be massive differences in:

- physical distance from 5G amp

- power / use on the 5G channel

- hours of exposure to

- potential of shielding from construction materials

- individual human bio and suseptability to disease etc

If I were a researcher and wanted to study this issue, I'd look at people who work in churches. Many churches with tall steeples lease space in them to wireless network providers, and those who work in churches are working under these antennas all day in close proximity. Comparing cancer rates in this population to those in the general vicinity would be an interesting study.

I'd hypothesize that there isn't a big increase in cancer rates for pastors of Baptist churches. We've all had cell phones connected to our bodies for decades now with the main side effect apparently sore thumbs and disrupted sleep patterns. If there were a correlation, I'd expect we'd see it by now.

If I understand transmitters correctly, wouldn't ~directly under the antenna be a relatively low signal strength area?

Someone correct my if I'm wrong.

I see no reason to expect 20+ GHz to have similar effects to <2GHz radiation. At 20 GHz, almost all energy is deposited in the skin or eyes.

Disclaimer: Personally I don’t think LTE and co really pose significant health risks.

But, your claim that there were no changes to public health in the last two decades seems misinformed. Eg we have an Alzheimer‘s epidemic and an obesity epidemic, and rapidly dropping fertility rates. AFAIK some cancers are more prevalent. All these could be caused by other factors, but it definitely needs to be ruled out.

Not a scientist but did some undergraduate work in biochem. The answer might be in those two observations (Alzheimer's + obesity). As I understood it in most cases of Alzheimer's there is a deficiencies in the brain- glucose pathway/efficiency and as a result (some studies think) that the brain now have to work harder at extracting the energy from pathway and spend less time on maintenance+cleaning... (plague + metabolites). Thus switching the brain to ketones(or low enough carbs) will force brain to make use of this new fuel source.(better source ?). There is definitely a link to obesity and over eating on carbs/sugar/glucose

Just interesting that the two cases might be realted (Alzheimer's and obesity)

disclaimer not a scientist or hippie.

Ppl working in churches might also be more religious and follow a spiritual/different diet... depending on church... Could be a range of reasons why ppl in working in churches are more or less ill...

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

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

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

> The Lancet, from what I understand, is a pretty respectable journal

Again, it's complicated. The Lancet is the name of a (good!) general medical journal, but there are also topics that are discussed in specialized sub-journals. The one you linked to is from "The Lancet Planetary Health", a relatively (2017) new journal that is not on the master journal list [1] and is therefore not seen as respectable, well-recognized, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[1] Search the list on this website: http://mjl.clarivate.com/

Thanks for the link to the article. It is worth quoting from it, I think:

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

I find that article full of red flags:

- Conflating all radio-frequencies - Some of the cited articles specifically admit that the results are non-confirmed. - Multiple instances of going lax in "correlation is not causation", specially with bees and babies.

About the babies, oh I could go on a longer rant on that one. Yes they pay way too much attention to phones to the point where some mental faculties develop in a different way. But hey, when we lived in nomadic groups of people in the African flat-lands, the kids would always have more people and critters around to catch their attention, these days it is often just two busy adults in a sprawling all-consuming house with wages to earn, mortgages to pay and baby messes to fix. In my view, our "forced" social conventions, including Christian monogamy and asphyxiating rigid sexual and familial conventions have more to do with the problem than cell-phones.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that in the "natural" world nature had more effective ways to kill us than even the Sun's ultraviolet radiation, so it's a brave new world out there once we make it after our 30s. So who knows, probably radio-frequencies are also out to get us.

From the journal that published Dr. Andrew Wakefield research on Autism and MMR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How were they supposed to know that Wakefield's data was fraudulent?

One of the co-signee of this Lancet paper, David O. Carpenter, is the subject of the NYT article.

Could you provide some links to the articles that say "this is definitely something to worry about"?

edit: I'll start with some counter-evidence concluding it's safe. A literature review of millimeter-wave radiation safety (the type used for 5G): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050

This three-part article is written by an electrical engineer who approaches the subject without any preconceptions or previous bias one way or another (make sure to read all 3 parts):

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4461754/Does-...

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4461840/Does-...

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4462072/Does-...

Thanks. Here are my comments as I read all 3 parts:

Part 1: Re-iterates what I've said in this thread before. No safety concerns. Correctly cites scientific sources to back up claims.

Part 2: Citation [1] referenced in blog is not consistent with 5G frequencies. (Limited) measurements and simulations are performed at 380 GHz, while 5G is <300 GHz. Citation [2] in the blog doesn't make the conclusion that the blogger thinks (scientists say: "Perhaps, MMW has bactericidal and the other actions, leading to a change in characteristics and metabolic pathways in bacteria and to their antibiotic resistance.", blogger says "study found that mmWaves altered bacteria growth". All further conclusions are based on flawed interpretations of these 2 articles.

Part 3: Opinion piece to "stop 5G until it is proven harmless". Well, that's the end of everything then. Since proving a negative is impossible we can never do anything new ...?

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8016593 [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-016-7538-0

"You can't prove a negative" is just a saying and not actually true.

That depends on how precisely you are using the word "prove", and in which domain you are thinking.

In philosophy of science we like to formulate theories as falsifiable claims.

Also, as "you can't prove a negative" is a falsifiable claim, it's an interesting logical statement that argues against itself.

The link I always see referenced on social media is this one:

https://www.gaia.com/article/5g-health-risks-the-war-between...

I always then point to the author's scientific qualifications. Clue: he's not a scientist, engineer, IT specialist, medical expert.

His qualifications:

> Paul Wagner is a 5-Time EMMY® Award Winning writer, an intuitive-empath, author of The Field Guide to Human Personalities, and creator of The Personality App and Personality Cards.

I don't like the approach of questioning credentials. It would be more useful, in my opinion, to demonstrate the factual incorrectness of the blogpost by investigating its (scientific) sources. See where the information comes from and check if it is represented well. Spoiler alert: this article does not cite scientific sources, only other self-referential blogposts.

So let's see this article.

> While it would be fair to assume that 5G technology has been tested for risks, this is simply not the case.

False. Just a Google Scholar search away are many articles investigating the safety: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=radiation+safety+5G

> 5G millimeter waves [..] naturally cause the skin to rise in temperature

So? If the rise in temperature was large, it may be a concern. However, the rise is very slight. Moving from one room to another in your house changes the temperature more. Heck, even standing up from your desk.

> Many scientists understand that the electromagnetic radiation leaking through the doors of our microwave ovens are carcinogenic, and therefore, can cause cancer.

[citation needed]. If there are so many scientists, why not name a few?

> launch of 5G will be similar to turning on your microwave, opening its door, and leaving it on for the rest of your life

Laughably false. Your microwave oven operates at the same frequency as Wi-Fi and the power required is thousands of times higher than your Wi-Fi router to be able to heat the food.

> Radiation causes cancer.

True, but misleading. Certain types of radiation (ionizing radiation, which 5G is not) are carcinogenic.

> [..] radiation does one major thing to human beings and animals – it destroys our DNA

Again, not all radiation does this. Only radiation at much higher frequencies than any of the 5G bands will do this.

> an intuitive-empath

This tells us everything we need to know

> I have no idea what to believe here.

I often hear this kind of thing. This is a false dilemma. You hear one story from one side and another story from another side. Both sound reasonable, but it's so complicated that you can't evaluate it. Which do you believe?

The answer is that you can choose to believe neither. True, you have to make a choice between the two, but I think it's actually critically important not to believe. If you are the decision maker, and you do not understand the issue well enough to make a decision, then you need to do a risk analysis and make your choices based on that risk analysis.

After you have done that, you then you need to make predictions. Over time, it should become more clear which side (or perhaps another result that never had a "side") is becoming the more likely good choice. You need to track that issue and keep comparing it to your predictions. If it looks like you made the wrong choice, then you should go to your recovery plan (which you did make, right?)

That's how to sanely deal with these situations. The idea that you believe one side or the other, throw your weight to that side full force and then close your eyes and hope you were right is... Hmm... how can I characterise it? ;-) Not reasonable.

I'd be keen to read some of those sources. I used to work in radio spectrum management in the past, and I haven't read anything to tell me why 5G is significantly more harmful than other sources of non-ionising radiation we use on a daily basis.

I don't know either - but that makes the choice simple. I'll stay away. This kind of dichotomy is almost always fed by financially interested parties, so I'll pick the safer choice - avoiding the possibility of harm until/unless everyone gets it sorted (by parties without financial interests in the answer) that it is definitively safe.

> until/unless everyone gets it sorted (by parties without financial interests in the answer) that it is definitively safe.

This has never happened with anything. You're just pretending Pascal's Wager becomes a valid argument when applied to 5G radiation.

Since when was it not?

The difficulty is that with 5G, there is no option to stay away or pick the safer choice (save moving to some remote area), as the 5G base stations will transmit to everyone indiscriminately with no possibility of opting out.

It's one thing if you use a phone yourself, but the energy hitting you from the base stations is far less than what you get in that area of frequencies from the sun.

If that's true, how does the phone manage to pick the signal out from all that solar radiation?

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

frequency filtering.

True. Most of the fight I've seen has been at the city level, debating the regulations for where the base stations can be placed, and what ROW is granted to support them. But if people fail to engage with their local government when the topic is discussed, it would be difficult to fight after the fact.

Every day it's either "duh obviously 5G is harmless it's just non-ionizing radio waves" or "5G might be giving you cancer and killing birds and disrupting weather radar and.." so all I can conclude is that there's no consensus yet.

Why would you give two positions equal weight just because they are in opposition?

why would I weigh one more? maybe it's harmless, maybe it has bad effects (it isn't unprecedented for non-ionizing waves to have bad effects on anything)

You weigh one more because you consider the evidence, and not just count the headlines on your feed.

I believe snowwrestler is asking you to trust your gut and preconceived biases to lead you to the truth, in lieu of being an expert in the field with empirical data to examine. Ironically, going with their gut is precisely what many of the people opposed to 5G are doing, and I don't expect that's the outcome snowwrestler desires.

And that is exactly how fud like '5G might be giving you cancer and killing birds and ...' gets traction. Say it loud enough and often enough and there is too much noise for people without domain expertise to reach a conclusion. Which of course doesn't stop most of them from reaching one anyway.

The consensus is that non-ionizing radiation does not cause health problems at the power levels used in cell towers.

leaded gasoline, global warming, cigarettes and lung cancer?