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

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#71

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

brookhaven_dude wrote: post #60
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.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of falsehood. Strong magnetic fields can make you forget things. No one know what sort of effect wrought by weak EM radiation exposure over decades. Some of us would like to err on the side of caution, if feasible. Just like GMO and organic food.

I feel like that philosophy is like "never look down, for fear you might have to come to terms with the giants whose shoulders you stand on."

One of the tougher individual questions are 'how should one deal in societal stances one doesn't personally agree with, but tacitly relies upon society at large to in fact take those disagreeable stances?' war, defense, vaccines, GMO's, wireless communications.

I call these the "you need me on that wall" things.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#72

Post by ummonk »

s_dev wrote: post #15
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?

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.

Well, it's higher frequency resulting in high localized absorption, so it's not no different from 4G or 3G.

(I haven't seen any credible study saying it actually increases cancer risk, but from first principles, 5G increasing cancer risk, particularly skin cancer risk, doesn't seem all that absurd, similar to how sunlight increases cancer risk)

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#73

Post by missosoup »

mercutio2 wrote: post #69
missosoup wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> skin reflects 20-30% of the power and the rest is almost completely absorbed by the epidermis. So 70% of the energy is absorbed by the skin. What does that much energy at those freqs do to the epidermis? I don't know, you don't know. I'm not saying you're making a case for the conspiracy theories, but you're certainly not making one against them. > If you go outside during daytime why worry about 5G? If you go outs…

All EM waves can interact with molecules in our bodies, that’s true. But all of the interaction is thermal , not ionizing. And the energy levels are so tiny that the thermal impact is much less than the thermal impact of opening or closing a window on a warm day. Microwave ovens have thermal interactions with the food inside them, because the microwave runs at tens of thousands of times higher power than is used for…

Restricting the harm window to ionising radiation is a red herring.

We know that magnetic fields alone have very apparent interactions with humans and other living organisms[1].

The only mitigating factor here is the TRP, but at the FCC limit of 500 watts ERP per channel, that's actually not too far off from microwave ovens. I doubt it'll hurt humans unless they happen to live in the immediate path of an eNodeB, but I don't think either one of us is qualified to speculate about what it'll do to inspects and birds that will pass much closer to it.

Your wifi router isn't cooking you because it's at a significantly lower ERP than a microwave oven, but the same is not true for a mobile cell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulat...

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#75

Post by gorillaJoe »

Just started reading, very informative so far. Nice to see what comes out from distilling the hype.

This might help those that like to read on mobile like me:

  # from their git repo we can build arbitrary formats (requires python)
  git clone https://github.com/SystemsApproach/5G.git

  # generate an epub file inside of *_build/epub*
  make epub

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#76

Post by deepnotderp »

rjzzleep wrote: post #44
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.

Funny I would call it almost the same. It's 4g plus channel coding, massive mimo, beamforming and more ML which influences the spectrum choices. The vastly different is a marketing term.

There is "5G" with mmWave and "5G" without mmWave, you've described the latter.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#77

Post by pas »

ummonk wrote: post #72
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.

Well, it's higher frequency resulting in high localized absorption, so it's not no different from 4G or 3G. (I haven't seen any credible study saying it actually increases cancer risk, but from first principles, 5G increasing cancer risk, particularly skin cancer risk, doesn't seem all that absurd, similar to how sunlight increases cancer risk)

60GHz is much, much, much lower than any UV. (UVA is mainly responsible for skin aging (photoaging), and it's above visible light, and visible light starts at around 400 TeraHerz.)

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#78

Post by pas »

ewzimm wrote: post #32
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.

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/s41…

The bactericidal effects study is behind a paywall (but seems to be readable here: https://www.academia.edu/10777146/Bactericidal_effects_of_lo... )

See also: 53GHz has some anti-microbial effects when combined with antibiotics: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265134435_The_Enhan...

Interestingly the antibiotic resistance is only seen in one particular number on a graph, whereas the other numbers show that EMF seems "beneficial" as it is slowing bacterial growth. Naturally the question is, what happens if you throw human tissue in the mix too.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#79

Post by pas »

ilogik wrote: post #63
brookhaven_dude wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of falsehood. Strong magnetic fields can make you forget things. No one know what sort of effect wrought by weak EM radiation exposure over decades. Some of us would like to err on the side of caution, if feasible. Just like GMO and organic food.

"strong magnetic fields can make you forget things" source?

(Not OP.)

I thought TMS can do that, after all it can do the reverse: https://neurosciencenews.com/memory-loss-reversed-tms-12006/

There are some adverse effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulat...

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#80

Post by pas »

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?

60GHz is the real new and shiny thing that makes some people worry.
Post reply on HN