7 ms·

You're saying that the higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin. So this means that the human skin (and I assume at least a couple of layers of b

You're saying that the higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin. So this means that the human skin (and I assume at least a couple of layers of body under the skin) effectively absorbs all the energy of the signal that reaches it. This is one of the main concerns. You're saying that signals are going to be phased and directional, but for example if you are using a cell phone or even a laptop, that phased signal will be directed at that human and at their body. This means that all of the energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions (and only a small portion of it was hitting the human skin) - is now concentrated in that beam, with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? How is this not a health concern? From what I understant there have been no huge human studies on this. The higher frequencies actually might have other properties than lower ones, and just because we assume that 4G and lower bands of 5G are completely safe, the further study of the higher frequencies is surely needed. What is more alarming is the rate at which many of the countries (and hardware companies making billions on this rollout and thus pushing and lobbying for a faster one) are trying to implement 5G. Shouldn't we be careul about it and implement this untested(!) technology in small areas first?

itcrowd 7y ago
> higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin True > this means that the human skin effectively absorbs all the energy that reaches it False. Most power is reflected directly off the skin. The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect. > energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions is now concentrated in that beam True > with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? Nope. > no huge human studies on this True > higher frequencies [..] have other properties than lower ones True > further study of the higher frequencies is [..] needed Agree, depending on what you want to study. > Shouldn't we be careful about [..] this untested(!) technology It is not accurate to say that it is untested. There have been many investigations in the frequency ranges required for 5G and none have shown any negative health effects, nor is there a proposed mechanism for which this should occur. I gave some details in another post [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  > The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect. Alright thank you, if that is the case, sounds like physics-wise we should be relatively safe. If you have any other links to actual studies besides what is in that post, please link them!
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    Since I cannot edit my other posts anymore, I thought I'd leave some references here for those that are interesting in reading. [1] High-level overview. The applications are somewhat outdated w.r.t. 5G (2003) [2] Literature review of possible causes of harm from non-ionizing radiation [3] Further review of biological effects [4] "RF Energy Absorption by Biological Tissues in Close Proximity to Millimeter-Wave 5G Wireless Equipment" [5] "Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications" [1, PDF] http://99.51.244.77:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standards/keynote5dawoud.pdf http://99.51.244.77:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standard... [2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/001/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/00... [3] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978 [4] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8247178 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8247178 [5] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7032050 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7032050
    - danielst 7y ago
      Thank you itcrowd, I am quite interested to see these studies on 5G that I did not know existed until now. I just had a look at [4]; the authors are Davide Colombi "Since 2009, he has been with Ericsson Research, Stockholm, Sweden, where he has been involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment." Björn Thors "Since 2005, he has been with Ericsson Research, where he is currently a Senior Specialist, involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure assessment of wireless equipment." Christer Törnevik "He joined Ericsson in 1991, and has, since 1993, been involved in research activities related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment. He is currently a Senior Expert with Ericsson Research and is responsible for electromagnetic fields and health within the Ericsson Group." And Quirino Balzano No listed affiliation with Ericsson, but "His group was essential in the development of the cell phone technology." Hmmm.... As a thought experiment: can anyone imagine these three authors, employed by Ericsson (the prominent wireless company), conceivably publishing a paper showing that wireless technology has adverse health effects? Regarding [5] the authors are: Theodore S. (Ted) Rappaport "His Ph.D. study provided fundamental knowledge of indoor wireless channels and was used to create the first Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11)... He co-founded the Virginia Tech Summer School and Wireless Symposium, in 1991, the Texas Wireless Summit, in 2003, and the Brooklyn 5G Summit (B5GS), in 2014...He is the Founder and the Director of NYU WIRELESS, a multidisciplinary research center focused on the future of wireless communications and applications. He conducted fundamental work that led to the first U.S. Digital cellphone standards, TDMA IS-54/IS-136 and CDMA IS-95. He and his students engineered the world’s first public Wi-Fi hotspots, and more recently, his work proved the viability of millimeter waves for mobile communications. The global wireless industry adopted his vision for fifth-generation (5G) cellphone networks." So he is one of the "creators" of wireless, as it were. It would be rather surprising if he were to publish findings about negative health effects of his "brainchild." Ting Wu Affiliation NYU WIRELESS Brooklyn NY 11201, USA (Rappaport's company) and Christopher M. Collins (no immediately apparent conflict of interest) In addition, the title ("Safe for Generations to Come") would be, for me, a clear "red flag." Regarding [3] the authors are Ronald C. Petersen "Until his retirement in July 2001, he managed the Wireless and Optical Technologies Safety Department (WOTS), which serves as the Lucent Technologies Inc. resource for all nonionizing radiation matters and as a resource for Lucent wireless customers on RF safety and FCC compliance issues." and Eleanor R. Adair (no immediately apparent conflicts of interest) Independently of the authors' conflicts of interest, it would be necessary to know the source of the funding for each of these research papers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, industry-funded and independently-funded studies yield quite different results. The quote from the Guarian article is worth repeating here: "When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects." [1] and [2] do not relate to 5G. Regarding pre-5G radio frequency technologies, it has already been established that the majority of (independent) studies show these technologies to have adverse health effects. To quote again from the recently-mentioned article in The Lancet: "A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation." So after having a look at the three articles cited above that relate to 5G, I must revise what I said earlier ("No studies on 5G have been done"). In fact, it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done.
TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago
>You're saying that the higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin. So this means that the human skin (and I assume at least a couple of layers of body under the skin) effectively absorbs all the energy of the signal that reaches it. This is one of the main concerns. The top layer of skin (the epidermis) is dead skin cells. Cancer is when cells start reproducing uncontrollably, and dead cells don't reproduce anyway. Its the living cells that you need to protect
- corodra 7y ago
  Didn't you just dismiss all concerns of uv radiation from the sun since it just hits the top layer of the skin?
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    You're comparing 400nm wavelengths to 1cm wavelengths. Ultraviolet obviously penetrates the top layer of the skin as it is much more energetic.
corodra 7y ago
Honestly, let's ignore the health concerns for a moment. Even though its important, lets say it's not. What's described means these bands are unreliable. A lot of these high frequency bands require clear line of sight or a hopeful bounce off a surface that doesn't absorb it. Partly why the high frequency wifi routers are not taking the market by storm. They're slightly niche.
chronolitus 7y ago
> is now concentrated in that beam, with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? How is this not a health concern? Have you ever been outside? Felt the warmth of the sun on your skin? That warmth is (up to) 1000W/m^2 of ionizing high frequency EM waves being absorbed by your skin. So in light of that, if you want to be consistent, you should start worrying about non-penetrating EM waves from 5G when you feel them heat your skin up. Of course, skin-penetrating waves are another story entirely, but the point of the article is that they seemingly don't.
zw123456 7y ago
Sorry I wasn't around today to respond more timely, but I appreciate all the interest and thoughtful responses. After reading through them, I think I see a misunderstanding. One of the advantages of the pencil width beams is that they do not have to be on all the time. The beam will not turn on and point at you unless it sees your device advertising. As soon as that is interrupted, the beam goes elsewhere to service others within usually a few hundred microseconds. So the beam will not hit you, it is aiming at the antenna on your device, if the energy is not being absorbed into the antenna it goes away. So worse case you get a few 100us of lower level energy than the FR1 band. Think of it like this, say you are a gNodeB (5G BTS) your job is to shine a laser pointer on a sign that hays hello. As soon as you cant see it because someone got in front of it you look for a different sign to shine it on. You don't want to waste time and energy shining it on something that is not an antenna. So what happens when the FR2 mmwave is interreupted ? You of course fall back to FR1 which is on all the time. Remember it is the same frequencies as 4G LTE but now using 5G protocols and a new more efficient modulation scheme (5Gnr, for new radio which uses NOMA instead of OFDMA). So really you need both. It all depends on the amount of spectrum, but typically for most of the large carriers the low band users can expect 1Gbps - 2Gbps speeds and in high bands mmwave 2Gbps - 10Gbps. So even when it rains or you get blocked, it's still pretty darn cool !

itcrowd 7y ago

> higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin True > this means that the human skin effectively absorbs all the energy that reaches it False. Most power is reflected directly off the skin. The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect. > energy that earlier was dispersing in all directions is now concentrated in that beam True > with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? Nope. > no huge human studies on this True > higher frequencies [..] have other properties than lower ones True > further study of the higher frequencies is [..] needed Agree, depending on what you want to study. > Shouldn't we be careful about [..] this untested(!) technology It is not accurate to say that it is untested. There have been many investigations in the frequency ranges required for 5G and none have shown any negative health effects, nor is there a proposed mechanism for which this should occur. I gave some details in another post [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
> The tiny amount of power that is not reflected off the skin contributes to warming your skin, but the power level is so low that it has no discernible effect. Alright thank you, if that is the case, sounds like physics-wise we should be relatively safe. If you have any other links to actual studies besides what is in that post, please link them!
- itcrowd 7y ago
  Since I cannot edit my other posts anymore, I thought I'd leave some references here for those that are interesting in reading. [1] High-level overview. The applications are somewhat outdated w.r.t. 5G (2003) [2] Literature review of possible causes of harm from non-ionizing radiation [3] Further review of biological effects [4] "RF Energy Absorption by Biological Tissues in Close Proximity to Millimeter-Wave 5G Wireless Equipment" [5] "Safe for Generations to Come: Considerations of Safety for Millimeter Waves in Wireless Communications" [1, PDF] http://99.51.244.77:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standards/keynote5dawoud.pdf http://99.51.244.77:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standard... [2] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/001/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/00... [3] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/989978 [4] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8247178 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8247178 [5] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7032050 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7032050
  - danielst 7y ago
    Thank you itcrowd, I am quite interested to see these studies on 5G that I did not know existed until now. I just had a look at [4]; the authors are Davide Colombi "Since 2009, he has been with Ericsson Research, Stockholm, Sweden, where he has been involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment." Björn Thors "Since 2005, he has been with Ericsson Research, where he is currently a Senior Specialist, involved in research and standardization related to radio frequency exposure assessment of wireless equipment." Christer Törnevik "He joined Ericsson in 1991, and has, since 1993, been involved in research activities related to radio frequency exposure from wireless communication equipment. He is currently a Senior Expert with Ericsson Research and is responsible for electromagnetic fields and health within the Ericsson Group." And Quirino Balzano No listed affiliation with Ericsson, but "His group was essential in the development of the cell phone technology." Hmmm.... As a thought experiment: can anyone imagine these three authors, employed by Ericsson (the prominent wireless company), conceivably publishing a paper showing that wireless technology has adverse health effects? Regarding [5] the authors are: Theodore S. (Ted) Rappaport "His Ph.D. study provided fundamental knowledge of indoor wireless channels and was used to create the first Wi-Fi standard (IEEE 802.11)... He co-founded the Virginia Tech Summer School and Wireless Symposium, in 1991, the Texas Wireless Summit, in 2003, and the Brooklyn 5G Summit (B5GS), in 2014...He is the Founder and the Director of NYU WIRELESS, a multidisciplinary research center focused on the future of wireless communications and applications. He conducted fundamental work that led to the first U.S. Digital cellphone standards, TDMA IS-54/IS-136 and CDMA IS-95. He and his students engineered the world’s first public Wi-Fi hotspots, and more recently, his work proved the viability of millimeter waves for mobile communications. The global wireless industry adopted his vision for fifth-generation (5G) cellphone networks." So he is one of the "creators" of wireless, as it were. It would be rather surprising if he were to publish findings about negative health effects of his "brainchild." Ting Wu Affiliation NYU WIRELESS Brooklyn NY 11201, USA (Rappaport's company) and Christopher M. Collins (no immediately apparent conflict of interest) In addition, the title ("Safe for Generations to Come") would be, for me, a clear "red flag." Regarding [3] the authors are Ronald C. Petersen "Until his retirement in July 2001, he managed the Wireless and Optical Technologies Safety Department (WOTS), which serves as the Lucent Technologies Inc. resource for all nonionizing radiation matters and as a resource for Lucent wireless customers on RF safety and FCC compliance issues." and Eleanor R. Adair (no immediately apparent conflicts of interest) Independently of the authors' conflicts of interest, it would be necessary to know the source of the funding for each of these research papers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, industry-funded and independently-funded studies yield quite different results. The quote from the Guarian article is worth repeating here: "When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects." [1] and [2] do not relate to 5G. Regarding pre-5G radio frequency technologies, it has already been established that the majority of (independent) studies show these technologies to have adverse health effects. To quote again from the recently-mentioned article in The Lancet: "A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields. We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects.7 This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation." So after having a look at the three articles cited above that relate to 5G, I must revise what I said earlier ("No studies on 5G have been done"). In fact, it appears that no INDEPENDENT studies on 5G have been done.

TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago

>You're saying that the higher bands of 5G cannot even penetrate the human skin. So this means that the human skin (and I assume at least a couple of layers of body under the skin) effectively absorbs all the energy of the signal that reaches it. This is one of the main concerns. The top layer of skin (the epidermis) is dead skin cells. Cancer is when cells start reproducing uncontrollably, and dead cells don't reproduce anyway. Its the living cells that you need to protect

corodra 7y ago
Didn't you just dismiss all concerns of uv radiation from the sun since it just hits the top layer of the skin?
- merpnderp 7y ago
  You're comparing 400nm wavelengths to 1cm wavelengths. Ultraviolet obviously penetrates the top layer of the skin as it is much more energetic.

corodra 7y ago

Honestly, let's ignore the health concerns for a moment. Even though its important, lets say it's not. What's described means these bands are unreliable. A lot of these high frequency bands require clear line of sight or a hopeful bounce off a surface that doesn't absorb it. Partly why the high frequency wifi routers are not taking the market by storm. They're slightly niche.

chronolitus 7y ago

> is now concentrated in that beam, with huge parts of it absorbed by the skin? How is this not a health concern? Have you ever been outside? Felt the warmth of the sun on your skin? That warmth is (up to) 1000W/m^2 of ionizing high frequency EM waves being absorbed by your skin. So in light of that, if you want to be consistent, you should start worrying about non-penetrating EM waves from 5G when you feel them heat your skin up. Of course, skin-penetrating waves are another story entirely, but the point of the article is that they seemingly don't.

zw123456 7y ago

Sorry I wasn't around today to respond more timely, but I appreciate all the interest and thoughtful responses. After reading through them, I think I see a misunderstanding. One of the advantages of the pencil width beams is that they do not have to be on all the time. The beam will not turn on and point at you unless it sees your device advertising. As soon as that is interrupted, the beam goes elsewhere to service others within usually a few hundred microseconds. So the beam will not hit you, it is aiming at the antenna on your device, if the energy is not being absorbed into the antenna it goes away. So worse case you get a few 100us of lower level energy than the FR1 band. Think of it like this, say you are a gNodeB (5G BTS) your job is to shine a laser pointer on a sign that hays hello. As soon as you cant see it because someone got in front of it you look for a different sign to shine it on. You don't want to waste time and energy shining it on something that is not an antenna. So what happens when the FR2 mmwave is interreupted ? You of course fall back to FR1 which is on all the time. Remember it is the same frequencies as 4G LTE but now using 5G protocols and a new more efficient modulation scheme (5Gnr, for new radio which uses NOMA instead of OFDMA). So really you need both. It all depends on the amount of spectrum, but typically for most of the large carriers the low band users can expect 1Gbps - 2Gbps speeds and in high bands mmwave 2Gbps - 10Gbps. So even when it rains or you get blocked, it's still pretty darn cool !