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

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#51

Post by testis321 »

chrisweekly wrote: post #31
markus92 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And mobile phones have existed for 40 years, gsm for almost 30. Considering the most radiation is outputed during the phone conversations, and most people hold their phone always on the same side of the head (irradiating only that half), detecting an epidemic of mobile phone radiation sicknesses would be easy, if there were any.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#52

Post by gsich »

l0000p wrote: post #40
gsich wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vastly different how?

Wavelength and hardware.

Hardware, well obviously.

Wavelength not so much. From 700MHz to 5 GHz everything is in use. Now 3.4GHz (main 5G frequency) is right inbetween. Nearly noone is trying to build 5G networks with the high frequencies starting from 24GHz because you have a) no range and b) line of sight is preferred.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#54

Post by testis321 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #49
tboyd47 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...) So, on the one hand, 5G is going to make unicorns fly down and carry us to the heavens on wings of pure data, and on the other hand, it can't go through walls...? Research shows that two thirds of consumers are not willing to pay even $1 more for 5G internet. [0] Regardless of the promises companies are ma…

Most data are consumed indoor anyway, so mmwave will likely be used through indoor micro cells. mmwave also allows to boost capacity. As already written in my previous comment, 5G is not just about faster internet. Other use-cases are as important, if not more. Operators know they can't charge consumers extra.

This!

You can put a mmwave basestation in a factory (a couple of cells near the ceiling) and controll everything (machines, "robots", transporters, forklifts, inventory,...) via LTE.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#55

Post by vorpalhex »

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.

> Since 5G is a vastly different technology

5G is not a vastly different technology. There are some very novel tricks under the hood, but it's still just fancy radios.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#56

Post by vorpalhex »

tboyd47 wrote: post #48
mytailorisrich wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mmwave range is only one of the 5G ranges. 5G will also use the same ranges as 3G and 4G. In the mmwave range transmitters will not have to transmit higher power levels. First because the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...), in short distance situations, and then also because beam forming will always be used. > especially when the benefits of…

> the use-case for this range is when there is NO obstacles to go through (it does not really work otherwise...) So, on the one hand, 5G is going to make unicorns fly down and carry us to the heavens on wings of pure data, and on the other hand, it can't go through walls...? Research shows that two thirds of consumers are not willing to pay even $1 more for 5G internet. [0] Regardless of the promises companies are ma…

You've never been in an expo hall with 10k people all trying to post an instagram photo, have you?

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#57

Post by pilsetnieks »

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?

Russian propagandists found a new bone to latch on to and sow chaos in the world (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-h...). Meanwhile Huawei and Ericsson are building 5G networks in Russia with full support from its government.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#58

Post by missosoup »

Nokinside wrote: post #36
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.

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?

> 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 outside during daytime on an Australian summer day without sunscreen including underneath your clothing, you're going to get severe sunburn and permanently increase your chance of skin cancer in under 15 minutes. We have public awareness campaigns about this on TV and everything. Not a great comparison.

I have no idea whether 5g freq ranges and power have health impacts, I'm just saying that clearly you don't either.

You could repeat everything you said for 2.450 MHz and sound plausible, except that's the frequency of microwave ovens that cook things including humans. Do any molecules resonate at 5g freqs? I have no idea, neither do you.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#59

Post by WarDores »

gsich wrote: post #52
l0000p wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wavelength and hardware.

Hardware, well obviously. Wavelength not so much. From 700MHz to 5 GHz everything is in use. Now 3.4GHz (main 5G frequency) is right inbetween. Nearly noone is trying to build 5G networks with the high frequencies starting from 24GHz because you have a) no range and b) line of sight is preferred.

I think the main concern comes from the mM-wave frequencies from what I've read. The others are more of the same, but a lot of what I've seen--and I can't remember where at the moment--focused exclusively on the high frequency nodes that would (theoretically) be deployed in urban areas.

Re: 5G Mobile Networks: A Systems Approach

#60

Post by brookhaven_dude »

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.

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.
Post reply on HN