You're saying that signals are going to be phased and directional, but for example if you are using a cell phone or even a laptop, that phased signal will be directed at that human and at their body. This means that all of the energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions (and only a small portion of it was hitting the human skin) - is now concentrated in that beam, with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? How is this not a health concern?
From what I understant there have been no huge human studies on this. The higher frequencies actually might have other properties than lower ones, and just because we assume that 4G and lower bands of 5G are completely safe, the further study of the higher frequencies is surely needed. What is more alarming is the rate at which many of the countries (and hardware companies making billions on this rollout and thus pushing and lobbying for a faster one) are trying to implement 5G. Shouldn't we be careul about it and implement this untested(!) technology in small areas first?
True
> this means that the human skin effectively absorbs all the energy that reaches it
False. Most power is reflected directly off the skin. The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect.
> energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions is now concentrated in that beam
True
> with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin?
Nope.
> no huge human studies on this
True
> higher frequencies [..] have other properties than lower ones
True
> further study of the higher frequencies is [..] needed
Agree, depending on what you want to study.
> Shouldn't we be careful about [..] this untested(!) technology
It is not accurate to say that it is untested. There have been many investigations in the frequency ranges required for 5G and none have shown any negative health effects, nor is there a proposed mechanism for which this should occur. I gave some details in another post [1].
Alright thank you, if that is the case, sounds like physics-wise we should be relatively safe. If you have any other links to actual studies besides what is in that post, please link them!
[1] High-level overview. The applications are somewhat outdated w.r.t. 5G (2003)
[2] Literature review of possible causes of harm from non-ionizing radiation
[3] Further review of biological effects
[4] "RF Energy Absorption by Biological Tissues in Close Proximity to Millimeter-Wave 5G Wireless Equipment"
[5] "Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications"
[1, PDF] http://99.51.244.77:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standard...
[2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/00...
[3] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978
I just had a look at [4]; the authors are Davide Colombi "Since 2009, he has been with Ericsson Research, Stockholm, Sweden, where he has been involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment."
Björn Thors "Since 2005, he has been with Ericsson Research, where he is currently a Senior Specialist, involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure assessment of wireless equipment."
Christer Törnevik "He joined Ericsson in 1991, and has, since 1993, been involved in research activities related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment. He is currently a Senior Expert with Ericsson Research and is responsible for electromagnetic fields and health within the Ericsson Group."
And Quirino Balzano No listed affiliation with Ericsson, but "His group was essential in the development of the cell phone technology."
Hmmm....
As a thought experiment: can anyone imagine these three authors, employed by Ericsson (the prominent wireless company), conceivably publishing a paper showing that wireless technology has adverse health effects?
Regarding [5] the authors are:
Theodore S. (Ted) Rappaport "His Ph.D. study provided fundamental knowledge of indoor wireless channels and was used to create the first Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11)... He co-founded the Virginia Tech Summer School and Wireless Symposium, in 1991, the Texas Wireless Summit, in 2003, and the Brooklyn 5G Summit (B5GS), in 2014...He is the Founder and the Director of NYU WIRELESS, a multidisciplinary research center focused on the future of wireless communications and applications. He conducted fundamental work that led to the first U.S. Digital cellphone standards, TDMA IS-54/IS-136 and CDMA IS-95. He and his students engineered the world’s first public Wi-Fi hotspots, and more recently, his work proved the viability of millimeter waves for mobile communications. The global wireless industry adopted his vision for fifth-generation (5G) cellphone networks." So he is one of the "creators" of wireless, as it were. It would be rather surprising if he were to publish findings about negative health effects of his "brainchild."
Ting Wu Affiliation NYU WIRELESS Brooklyn NY 11201, USA (Rappaport's company)
and Christopher M. Collins (no immediately apparent conflict of interest)
In addition, the title ("Safe for Generations to Come") would be, for me, a clear "red flag."
Regarding [3] the authors are
Ronald C. Petersen "Until his retirement in July 2001, he managed the Wireless and Optical Technologies Safety Department (WOTS), which serves as the Lucent Technologies Inc. resource for all nonionizing radiation matters and as a resource for Lucent wireless customers on RF safety and FCC compliance issues."
and
Eleanor R. Adair (no immediately apparent conflicts of interest)
Independently of the authors' conflicts of interest, it would be necessary to know the source of the funding for each of these research papers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, industry-funded and independently-funded studies yield quite different results. The quote from the Guarian article is worth repeating here:
"When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."
[1] and [2] do not relate to 5G. Regarding pre-5G radio frequency technologies, it has already been established that the majority of (independent) studies show these technologies to have adverse health effects. To quote again from the recently-mentioned article in The Lancet:
"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."
So after having a look at the three articles cited above that relate to 5G, I must revise what I said earlier ("No studies on 5G have been done"). In fact, it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done.
The Guardian article cites Henry Lai, but I could not find his paper (was it published at all?). It also cites Environmental Health Perspectives https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/
They reviewed not 326 but only 59 studies with 12 funded fully by industry. The statistical power is much lower, although I agree with you that there is a worrying trend that should be properly investigated.
Additionally, the potential conflict of interest you mention in the papers is interesting. I didn't go fully into their backgrounds as you did, which is interesting. I would be hesitant to conclude "it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done" because my list of references is very non-exhaustive and only the result of a cursory Google Scholar search.
Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful. I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.
I have been following this topic for some time and in everything I have read, I have (until today) never encountered a single reference to a study on the health effects of 5G (and have encountered many statements that 5G has not yet been studied for health effects), thus my initial assertion that there haven't been any studies. What I have encountered is many government and industry spokespeople and mainstream media outlets saying that 5G is safe, without ever citing a single study to support their claim. The few studies that turned up in your brief Google Scholar search are problematic, as I pointed out, due to conflicts of interest.
Regarding your last paragraph (I will comment in two parts):
> Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned) are not harmful.
I don't want to seem uncivil, but I think I missed this evidence? Thus far we have found three studies that address possible health effects from 5G, all of which have problems with conflicts of interest, correct? If there have been no other studies directly testing 5G, what is the scientific evidence (not theorizing, but actual empirical studies) that has been provided?
And:
> I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.
Firstly, not a single scientific paper has been posted because there haven't been any, yes? (setting aside the 3 we spoke of above). One of the essential points here is that this simply hasn't been studied (apart from the aforementioned problematic studies, unless there are others that we have not found, and that the various parties assuring the public that 5G is safe are likely also unaware of given that they have never cited them either), and the technology is being deployed anyway.
Regarding our ignorance of a "mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it": I would tend to place more trust in empirical studies -- what actually happens, are any effects produced? In terms of understanding the mechanism of how it happens, scientists may not have discovered this yet. A current gap in our knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the natural world does not mean that those mechanisms, and the effects that they produce, do not exist. In the meantime (i.e. before we discover the mechanisms), it seems imperative that the empirical effects are determined.
That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to somewhat revise my stance.
First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!):
1. 5G does not have ionizing radiation
2. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very accessible article from 2000 [1].
3. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem.
Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry-affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public funding) or mixed funding (public + private money).
Now, what I think we don't agree on:
4. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced / suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before widespread 5G rollout.
This is where it gets complicated. First, I did a PubMed search for 5g+safety (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AN...) and it turns up 3 relevant articles [2], [3] and [4] (one search result is unrelated to 5G).
Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research.
Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect).
Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses.
We need to look further.
I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore). According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and cannot be considered neutral. (See: https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/ and https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/)
That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation levels).
The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G may have some other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time.
I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]:
> In the respect of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, the development of new RF-EMF communication networks should be paralleled by adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure limits and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population.
> On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk(Wu et al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017).
[1] Ryan et. al, 2000, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION OF MILLIMETER WAVE LENGTH: POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATING TO SURFACE HEATING, https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/articleviewer....
[2] McClelland, 2018, The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534
[3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338
[4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose, https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642
[5] Di Ciaula, Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846391...
[6] Russel, CL, 2018, 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646
[7] In an interview in Italian he said the following:
The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions. (https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-elettromagnetici-e-... and Google translate)
So our difference seems to be, as you mentioned, whether we believe 5G deployment (sorry, I avoid the term "rollout" since I cannot stomach this term any more, it is used so repeatedly and reflexively in practically every article dealing with the subject :) ) should be halted or slowed before more research has been done as to its health effects. I see this as a question of ethics. The technology, of course, is being rushed to deployment and by its nature will will reach everyone within range of its multitude of base stations. The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation. At our current state of knowledge, we do not know whether the new 5G technology poses a significant threat of harm to humans, or a moderate threat, or a small threat, or no threat at all. The previous, related technology (3G, 4G, wi-fi, cell phones themselves, etc.) has been shown by the majority of the (independent) literature to pose health risks that are very much worthy of concern. The 5G technology involves a much greater number of base stations at close proximity to each other and humans, as well as a different, higher frequency whose effects on humans are unknown since apparently untested. Looking at this situation as a whole from the point of view of ethics, I think that it is very reasonable to assume that the new 5G technology could have significant health effects and that immersing the population in the radiofrequency radiation from this technology without first ruling out these plausible health effects, in the interest of not impeding the progress of the technology, is seriously problematic.
"The precautionary principle" is often cited in this connection, and I have to wholeheartedly agree with it.
Another aspect to take into account is that if the technology is studied thoroughly beforehand as to its possible health effects, it may be possible to amend the technology if necessary, or formulate precautionary measures, to minimize the health impact while still introducing the technology.
Deploying the technology before thorough testing amounts, I believe, to a crapshoot, "flying blind" as the U.S. Senator Blumenthal said in a congressional hearing in which he questioned senior members of the wireless industry. The technology is being pushed forward (for which the wireless industry and the government certainly have their own interests which do not overlap with those of the public, though one could argue that the higher download speeds (which I consider to be pretty trivial in the big picture) and other, future as-of-yet ill-defined applications of 5G (internet of things, etc.) could be of benefit to the public), and effectively we are just going to wait and watch and see if it hurts people a lot, a little, or not at all. I do not see how this can be considered in the least responsible.
I would be interested to know your thoughts and reflections on this ethical question, and of any other members of this forum who would like to chime in.
To keep in your cited "flying blind" analogy: I don't think we're flying blind. I think we have a good understanding of the dominant mechanisms that could cause biological harm (i.e. ionization and heating). I would rather say that we are flying with 98% vision. Are there some blind spots? Yes! We don't have full knowledge of all effects of millimeter-wave radiation, but the picture gradually becomes more complete. That's why it is important to keep researching.
However, we cannot be moving the goalposts. Let's imagine that it is shown that millimeter-wave radiation does not cause brain cancer. Then other "sceptics" may say "well, what about skin cancer?" and later "what about alzheimer's?" or "what about lung infections?". While I don't want to trivialize the seriousness of these diseases, I think it is fair to ask: when is 5G safety demonstrated sufficiently? Even after answering these questions, people may come up with yet another disease to investigate. This is what I meant earlier when I said you "can't prove a negative": you can't prove safety, you can only prove unsafety. [1]
That is why I think it is of paramount importance to identify mechanisms by which harm could occur and then investigate:
- what phenomenon (phenomena) are influenced by this mechanism?
- does this phenomenon actually occur [in the human body or animals], or is it only deep inside [the human body] where radiation doesn't penetrate?
- how harmful / beneficial is this, i.e. what is the extent of the effect?
I think we are starting to identify some biological effects that (in my opinion) are not major concerns. This is where the science is not clear-cut.
As for the "precautionary principle", yes we must be cautious about any new technology. But how many times can the goalposts be shifted before we acknowledge its safety? How can the industry prove or at least demonstrate an acceptable safety level?
---
> The people within their range will have no say as to whether or not they will be immersed in this radiofrequency radiation.
I think that's accurate and a reason that scientists need to clearly communicate the findings of their studies to the general public. A well-informed decision must be made. The level of discussion (other than this one) is pathetic, to be honest. Industry claiming its safe, some interest groups saying its unsafe and the public left stuck in the middle with no real clue of what to do. The one with the highest circulation of clickbait articles filled with fake statistics circulating on social media "wins" the discussion. Science be damned.
---
As for the purpose of 5G: I think it is completely overblown, media-hyped tech and the biggest buzzword of the last year(s). In my (academic) circles, I see 5G being the new "quantum" in the sense that it brings in a ton of research money (public and private!) if you can somehow manage to squeeze in the word "5G" in your powerpoint proposal for research funding. For me personally, I haven't seen any "killer application" of 5G. That's not to say that that can't come, of course. If 5G adoption must be halted for several years because significant health implications are suspected, I am (personally) fine with that. My opinion however, is that there is no scientific foundation for such drastic measures.
---
[1] Note the irony here, in that I am actually saying that the negative (unsafety) can be proven while the positive (safety) cannot.
Have you ever been outside? Felt the warmth of the sun on your skin? That warmth is (up to) 1000W/m^2 of ionizing high frequency EM waves being absorbed by your skin.
So in light of that, if you want to be consistent, you should start worrying about non-penetrating EM waves from 5G when you feel them heat your skin up.
Of course, skin-penetrating waves are another story entirely, but the point of the article is that they seemingly don't.
Think of it like this, say you are a gNodeB (5G BTS) your job is to shine a laser pointer on a sign that hays hello. As soon as you cant see it because someone got in front of it you look for a different sign to shine it on. You don't want to waste time and energy shining it on something that is not an antenna.
So what happens when the FR2 mmwave is interreupted ? You of course fall back to FR1 which is on all the time. Remember it is the same frequencies as 4G LTE but now using 5G protocols and a new more efficient modulation scheme (5Gnr, for new radio which uses NOMA instead of OFDMA).
So really you need both. It all depends on the amount of spectrum, but typically for most of the large carriers the low band users can expect 1Gbps - 2Gbps speeds and in high bands mmwave 2Gbps - 10Gbps.
So even when it rains or you get blocked, it's still pretty darn cool !
What's described means these bands are unreliable. A lot of these high frequency bands require clear line of sight or a hopeful bounce off a surface that doesn't absorb it. Partly why the high frequency wifi routers are not taking the market by storm. They're slightly niche.
The top layer of skin (the epidermis) is dead skin cells. Cancer is when cells start reproducing uncontrollably, and dead cells don't reproduce anyway. Its the living cells that you need to protect
The base station / small cell can have antennas with a large number of patches (32 to 256), so very narrow beams and high gain. This is used to compensate in part the very high attenuation at those frequencies. The device will have less antennas, so less gain.
Ideally, both device and cell will point their beams at each others, for maximum gain. There's a beam searching process as part of the 5G/mmWaves synchronization, and then beam tracking. All this is much easier when the device is static, for fiwed wireless access (FWA). When handling a mobile it gets trickier.
It's best to have a line of sight between the close small cell and the device, but it's also possible to have an indirect line with a bounce for example. There will be an impact on signal level, so if there's such a bounce you'll want to be closer.
For mobility, tracking a device is hard. Just turning a street corner or moving behind any object in the beam path can drop the mmWaves link. But today mmWaves for smartphones are deployed in NSA mode (non-stand alone), where it's always used in parallel with LTE in real time (dual connectivity or DC). Actually, all those device antennas consume so much that it's common to only use 5G/mmWaves in the downlink (cell to device) and stick to LTE in the uplink (device to cell). Reception is easier on the device as there's no power amplification as in the uplink. So when you drop the 5G connectivity, the LTE link is already there.
All those additional antenna modules explain why 5G phones are on the big side.
If the sub 6Ghz band, 5G is basically the same as 4G LTE, similar power levers (sometimes lower depending on some technical details beyond the scope I can go into here). But there are some significant technical improvements. A lower TTI, the TTI is the interval in which the modulation and coding schemes can change. In 4G LTE the TTI is 1ms, for 5G it is 100us. Also, the sub channels can effectively be smaller. The benefit here is to capacity. Think about protocols that may have small packet sizes, eg. Votle (voice over LTE, sort of like VOIP) or TCP SYN/ACK messages. If you devote an entire resource block (TTI, ie. time slice and sub-channel allocation) to a small packet you effectively waste a lot of spectrum. These are a few very simple examples of the various improvements that 5G in the sub-6Ghz has. But none of these changes to the protocols have any effect whatsoever on the effective radiation or would change the effects to humans which, in my view has been clearly been shown to be safe.
Now, the FR2 5G which typically operates in the mm-wave bands, for example 28Ghz. All of the above features and more apply, but one very important extra feature of the small wavelength is that it makes it possible to utilize beam forming antenna arrays, specifically Phased Array Antennas or Meta-material antennas. The reason is because the antenna elements (think each antenna element as a sort of RF pixel) has to be spaced 1/2 lambda (wavelength) apart so the physical size in the low bands is simply impractical but at higher frequencies the wavelengths are short enough that these antenna arrays are small (on the order of less than 1 foot square) and can have high gains and narrow beam widths. Now, if you think about this, that means that the beams are narrow (think about it like light, RF and light are both electro-magnetic waves but at different frequencies). This ability to control the beams means that the energy can be much lower. A joke that is often made in the industry is that mm-wave cannot propagate out of a wet paper bag. This is literally true, a wet piece of paper completely stops a mm-wave beam. That means that it cannot get through a pane of glass (or it is severely attenuated) and does not penetrate human skin, much less so than the lower bands. The benefit of the mm-wave is mostly that the antennas can be smaller and there is just a lot more spectrum. The benefit of more spectrum is of course Shannon's law C ~ B*SINR that is, the capacity in bps is proportional to the amount of spectrum B times the Signal to Noise and Interference ratio. So having more spectrum is a big deal.
All of what I am explaining here I am hoping, that the highly intelligent HN readers will understand is that the sub-6Ghz (FR1) 5G is essentially no different from 4GLTE except that there are a number of protocol and other improvements that increase capacity. In fact, the radios are the same in many cases and it is simply a software upgrade (many of these radios are essentially SDR's).
The mm-wave (FR2) is what is really radically different from traditional 4GLTE (although, it has been used for other wireless use cases for a long time such as LMDS, but that is another long story, in fact, much of the mm-wave spectrum comes from older LMDS applications). But newer technologies such as PAA (phased array antennas, borrowed from DoD military) offer significant increases in capacity and bandwidth at much lower and safer energy levels than previously possible from FR1 systems.
I know this is a very long post, but this is a very high level overview of the 5G technology. There are many other aspects and exciting new applications that are far beyond the scope that could be covered here. The most important issue in my view is that the fears and the propaganda that 5G has some sort of health related issues is founded in ignorance of the physics of the technology IMHO.