4 ms·

The title is editorialised ("5g Detrimental to Insects") which is not what the original title is, nor what the conclusion actually states - which is that at >6G

The title is editorialised ("5g Detrimental to Insects") which is not what the original title is, nor what the conclusion actually states - which is that at >6GHz RF energy absorption increases. The conclusion suggests that this may have effects, but didn't actually study those or figure out what they were.

nerdponx 7y ago
A large scale study of the long-term health effects of non-ionizing RF absorption on humans is wildly overdue. The fact that we don't even have one for fruit flies is a little unsettling.
Fnoord 7y ago
Title is "Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz"
arendtio 7y ago
Indeed, they just state that it could cause "changes" but not if those changes would be harmful or beneficial: > This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating.
- nerdponx 7y ago
  What about other mechanisms of action? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
yaantc 7y ago
Yes. Toward the end there is an example of the kind of effect their model gives: "As an example, for the Australian Stingless Bee (mass = 2.5 mg) a P abs of 3 × 10–8 W is estimated for an incident field strength of 1 V/m at 60 GHz. Under the assumption that the insect has a specific heat capacity equal to that of water (4179 J/K kg43), this RF-EMF exposure would result in a temperature increase of 3 × 10–6 K/s, in an isolated approximation." Early in the article, this insect size is given: "The scanned insect was approximately 4.5 mm long, 3.0 mm wide." So a surface on the order of ~10 mm2. The sun provides ~100 W/m2 in winter, ~1000 W/m2 in summer. So in winter, that's about 10-4 W/mm2 or 10-3 W over the surface of this insect. The absorbed energy due to 5G per their model is several orders of magnitude below the absorbed energy coming from flying under a winter sun. It's very good that people look at such effects. There may also be other effects besides just thermal ones as considered above. But clearly the title ("5g Detrimental to insects" at the time I write this) is undeserved and borderline trollish IMHO.
dekhn 7y ago
"A shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%. This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating." which is speculative. I agree; the paper is more measured than the HN title.

nerdponx 7y ago

A large scale study of the long-term health effects of non-ionizing RF absorption on humans is wildly overdue. The fact that we don't even have one for fruit flies is a little unsettling.

Fnoord 7y ago

Title is "Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz"

arendtio 7y ago

Indeed, they just state that it could cause "changes" but not if those changes would be harmful or beneficial: > This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating.

nerdponx 7y ago
What about other mechanisms of action? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

yaantc 7y ago

Yes. Toward the end there is an example of the kind of effect their model gives: "As an example, for the Australian Stingless Bee (mass = 2.5 mg) a P abs of 3 × 10–8 W is estimated for an incident field strength of 1 V/m at 60 GHz. Under the assumption that the insect has a specific heat capacity equal to that of water (4179 J/K kg43), this RF-EMF exposure would result in a temperature increase of 3 × 10–6 K/s, in an isolated approximation." Early in the article, this insect size is given: "The scanned insect was approximately 4.5 mm long, 3.0 mm wide." So a surface on the order of ~10 mm2. The sun provides ~100 W/m2 in winter, ~1000 W/m2 in summer. So in winter, that's about 10-4 W/mm2 or 10-3 W over the surface of this insect. The absorbed energy due to 5G per their model is several orders of magnitude below the absorbed energy coming from flying under a winter sun. It's very good that people look at such effects. There may also be other effects besides just thermal ones as considered above. But clearly the title ("5g Detrimental to insects" at the time I write this) is undeserved and borderline trollish IMHO.

dekhn 7y ago

"A shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%. This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time due to an increase in body temperatures, from dielectric heating." which is speculative. I agree; the paper is more measured than the HN title.