It seems odd to me that there are so many anti-5G stories. It almost comes off as deliberate and targeted. I would imagine that the science of what levels and frequencies of EM radiation are safe is settled.
New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#32Basically blog spam that cites an activist group that claims to have "published studies" that were published a year ago, having nothing to do with them. It is of course a concern that should be looked at, but we're currently in the "fear monger" stage with 5G. Those people who do the studies are the good people, but the people who take it and misrepresent it leverage fear of change/the new.
Though I can't say what you are saying is not true, in the case of electromagnetic issues I think it's the government which is not really doing it job because profit is more important. The NIH already showed that cancer can be caused by 2g and 3g in rats. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-... https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/416515-theres-a-clear...
We know, unequivocally, that high-power radio waves in certain frequency bands can cause tissue heating (e.g. it isn't ionizing radiation like what you see in UV and beyond, where photons have enough energy to displace electrons and cause unfortunate events, but just that it slightly increases the energy state). This particular study put very high power outputs right beside rats from gestation in the womb to their death, and paradoxically saw that their average lifespan was increased, though there were other cited ailments (which could be simply due to higher lifespan tissue temperature). Ideally you don't have a cell transmitter right beside you from birth to death.
The average exposure is many magnitudes lower. And given that heating is the only scientifically possible outcome, it is a pretty well studied area, but we should surely keep doing more.
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhat important to point out, I think: > “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addi…
> The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted. Does this mean in trains or public building where multiple phones are present, even hundreds of phones? 4x seems rather a…
Not really, there always is and been some kind of separations between the phones when they send data.
Most 2G systems used TDMA, so the phones inside a cell spitted the time between them. e.g. one phone could send almost all the time but 10 phones sent 1/10:th of the time each.
3G and laster used WCDMA (as some US system used even in 2G) for the radio. Where encryption of the data over a wide frequency span makes the signals mix in the air. But at the same time lowering the needed effect to get the signal across. With WCDMA you can send on an effect below the background noise and still get the signal across.
Lowering the effect of the radio is a big goal as it drains battery to send radio signals. An effect you can see it you travels in areas with bad receptions your phone battery drains significantly quicker. The best way to lower the radio exposure is to have loots of radio towers close to people. The alarmists scaring for cell-networks have made some problems in building enough towers, and by there fear of cell-radio transmission they increase the energy transmitted by the phones in there area.
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#34I haven't much looked into 5G. Considering that 95% of the time I'm on WiFi anyway, I really don't get this push for faster and faster mobile speeds. (especially if there's potential to damage wildlife and us with it)
Like you, I never feel needing more with a good LTE connection. It's faster than I've ever needed. Having said that, the promise of 5G is that it brings such an enormous bandwidth from a frequency perspective that it literally could be a broadly distributed very high speed connection technology for fixed locations. Purportedly one of the reasons Google abandoned their fiber project was that ultra-high speed for huge…
I'll take actually getting LTE speeds consistently (and getting the advertised speeds from my ISP) over a move to 5g any day.
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#35And on top of that nobody really even wants 5G except the companies themselves (and Trump, apparently). Worse range, worse penetration, more power usage, more expensive phones, all for extra bandwidth that won't even make a difference in regular usage. I wonder if it will die before it takes off?
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#36Interesting. I would like to see more research - especially with humans. That waves used in 4G cause harmful effects on humans was proved to be not true. But those mmWaves for 5G are much higher frequency, and they get absorbed by more materials. Perhaps by human body too? It wouldn’t be healthy to be constantly exposed to waves like that. I definitely would like to see more research in this.
> But those mmWaves for 5G are much higher frequency, and they get absorbed by more materials 4G is on the order of 10^9 Hz (1 GHz), and 5G is on the order of 10^10 - 10^11 Hz. Both are non-ionizing radiation, and in the overall scheme of things, relatively close in frequency. Ionizing radiation causes cell mutation. It starts with UV radiation at 10^16 Hz. X-rays are around 10^18 Hz. We can't say with certainty that…
You know the World Health Organization lists cell phones as "Possibly Causing Cancer in Humans" right?
That's the world's leading authority on human health saying that. I don't care that technically speaking cell phones "can't" cause cancer because they are thought to be non-ionizing.
That's just the same as all the other things in history that have been impossible until they've been done.
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most, almost all animals are mostly water. About 2GHz you have a frequency that resonates with water, it's gets stopped by water, including rain. E.g. it's energy goes into the water, this is how the microwave operates. For this reason it's traditionally considers useless as radio transmission. And turned into a global free frequency span. Making this radio space used by all kinds of devices that you have at home. Wi…
Above 20GHz you mean.
Nope, about 2ghz
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not boy who cried wolf, people just love their mobile internet and corporations and governments love their profit to care about the science: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-...
Somewhat important to point out, I think: > “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addi…
> The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.
Yeah, they really cooked those critters. Takeaway: if you work on 200W transmitters, don't sit on them all day every day.
Meanwhile, I'd like to keep using the 1W ~0% duty cycle transmitter in my phone, thankyouverymuch.
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#39What I want to know is who is behind the 5G fear-mongering. I see this all the time and from different places. My poor conspiracy-minded elderly uncle in western Pennsylvania has been had by Fox News and the rest of the insane-right. He sends me stuff like this all the time. What I want to understand is who stands to benefit from 5G not coming to pass. Is it a just one of many conspiracy theories cooked by a Kremlin…
Who benefits from anti-vaccination or flat-earth?
Conspiracy theories are probably a lucrative industry if you get enough of a following.
Re: New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhat important to point out, I think: > “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addi…
> The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted. Does this mean in trains or public building where multiple phones are present, even hundreds of phones? 4x seems rather a…
Also bear in mind that this obeys the inverse distance squared law; a phone being used by somebody a couple of meters away from you is going to give you massively less exposure than your own phone pressed directly against your ear.