Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

5g.systemsapproach.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 113 posts

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#31

Post by chrisweekly »

markus92 wrote: post #27
l0000p wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

Sounds like the same thing they said for 2g, 3g, 4g and Wifi. As long as I don't see a big epidemic of brain tumors or something related, I'll take these claims with a pinch of salt.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but am a cancer survivor, and feel compelled to reply that many forms of cancer have incubation periods [so to speak] approaching 20 years. So your salt is premature.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#32

Post by ewzimm »

l0000p wrote: post #16
s_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

It's true that we don't have the full picture. Nothing is certain yet, but the most likely health effects will be indirect. Two areas of concern are effects on insect populations, which are already in collapse, and effects on bacterial development, including potentially causing resistance to antibiotics. These studies would be a good place to start if you're interested in more information:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3

https://doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2012.691461

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#33

Post by chrisweekly »

gsich wrote: post #17
bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

No. 2.4 GHz is in use, as is 5 GHz. Now suddenly 3.4 GHz is a problem?

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't other factors besides frequency (power? distance?) relevant too?

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#34

Post by [deleted] »

l0000p wrote: post #16
s_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

[deleted]

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#35

Post by LeonM »

wallflower wrote: post #3

I heard the real reason we need 5G is to sell more new phones. Thinner and bigger and better cameras isn’t enough anymore. However, mobile phones running 5G radios will deplete their battery far more rapidly than LTE, right? And that is assuming the 5G phone user is in a major metropolitan area where there is sufficient coverage to begin with.

Yes, for the first couple of years 5G will be a marketing thing (5 is more than 4, so it _must_ be better).

It helps manufacturers sell more devices and telcos to convince people to upgrade their plan.

My opinion is that we don't really need 5G for portable devices (phones, tablets, etc). I'd like to argue that there are no services that would benefit from the higher bandwidth and lower latency that 5G offers over 4G. 5G does have benefits for stuff like IOT, but not for mobile devices imo.

The current pricing schemes of telcos also don't make sense with the bandwidth capabilities of 5G. I have a 'premium' plan with 10GB of data per month, with 4G I can (in theory) already deplete that 10GB in 80 seconds. With 5G I could theoretically deplete that in less than 10 seconds.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#36

Post by Nokinside »

l0000p wrote: post #16
s_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

We know how the wavelengths penetrate into the body and how much power goes into the skin. In new 60 Ghz 5G wavelengths skin reflects 20-30% of the power and the rest is almost completely absorbed by the epidermis. Overall the power densities are so slow that there is no reason to except anything.

Exposing skin to the sun is known radiation hazard. If you go outside during daytime why worry about 5G?

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#37

Post by tootie »

l0000p wrote: post #16
s_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

5G is still using radio frequency waves like every wireless communication device for the last 50 years.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#38

Post by 0xDEEPFAC »

bkovacev wrote: post #14

As someone new to the 5G world I'm hearing a lot about health concerns. Can someone please explain to me the actual health concerns? My GF has been talking about it for a while now, but when I looked up health related studies of 5G on google scholar - I didn't get any meaningful hits. Is it a tin foil thing or are there really some concerns?

I think there is totally something to it. I mean Brussels halted the roll out over these very concerns.

EU environment minister Céline Fremault: "The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt.”

https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/brussels-halts-5g-plans-ov...

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#39

Post by s_dev »

l0000p wrote: post #16
s_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tin foil hat thing. It's just wireless frequencies -- which may have some minor impact but it wouldn't be any different to 4G or 3G really and you can see that tech came and hasn't caused any major health issues.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

>the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

Nope, we know for certain it doesn't immediately cause irrepairable negative health damage that can be observed in a lab setting because this would have already been tested.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#40

Post by l0000p »

gsich wrote: post #18
l0000p wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, a statement like that, has just as much value as the conspiracy theory. Since 5G is a vastly different technology, the only thing we can say for certain is that we don't know the health risks at this point.

Vastly different how?

Wavelength and hardware.
Post reply on HN