4 ms·

As the HN guidelines say, "Assume good faith." I understand the MIMO designation, and I am not trying to misrepresent it in my comment. I know that 128x128 is

As the HN guidelines say, "Assume good faith." I understand the MIMO designation, and I am not trying to misrepresent it in my comment. I know that 128x128 is not sixteen thousand (!!!) antennas on one tower, but rather 256, half for rx and half for tx. That said, two hundred and fifty six antennae on one tower is far, far more (orders of magnitude, plural!) than the typical 2x2 or 4x4 4G towers deployed today. And keep in mind that this is certainly not "just" 256 antennae for one mall, because 5G is blocked by anything thicker than a post-it (the article mentions how future plans include deploying massive MIMO to each floor of a building, as drywall and glass both block many 5G frequencies!) The reality is that no matter how you want to slice it, 5G means moving from widely spaced 4G towers transmitting at frequencies we have used for around a century to hyper-dense massive deployments of large numbers of antennae transmitting at new and relatively un-studied frequencies. 4G towers are (mostly) kept away from humans getting too close; 5G towers will be on lampposts and on the same floor of your office where someone can touch them. I'm not saying 5G is inherently bad, or good, I have no idea. I haven't run a longitudinal study, but _neither has anyone else_, and that's what scares me a little. Look, the #1 post on HN right now is how highly trained, expert engineers accidentally made a bridge (one of the oldest human inventions, around for millennia) create an extremely loud eerie noise currently blanketing San Francisco. And sure, transmit power is low. But it's not just about the power. Today I went out and enjoyed a warming 1000 W/m2 of hundreds of-nm EM radiation all over my body. Then I accidentally looked at the source, which hurt my eyes and disoriented me. Later I played with a device of only 0.01W emitting highly temporally coherent EM radiation. I had to put on safety equipment, because it had the possibility to harm me, including permanently damaging my sight.

mintyc 6y ago
Lots of work has already been carried out. I think you misunderstand the concept of directional beamforming. The antennas in question in a phased array are 'elements' that cooperate to steer a more focussed beam in a given direction. The phone in your pocket when transmitting (whether 3G/4G/5G) is the biggest contribution to your personal health. Not a base station. I'd be concerned much more about low and mid band that can penetrate much further than high band. I am concerned about high band too (skin surface effects) but know nothing about this and assume work has been done to quantify and assess. My biggest problem both with 5G hype and those that seek to cast doubt on it is that both sides misrepresent the 'facts' to suit their agenda. Sadly that's true in all walks of life.
- owenversteeg 6y ago
  I've messed around with radio a bit, so I have some idea of beamforming. Basically, you use interference in the wavefront to your advantage. I am not sure what relevance it has here - at the end of the day, you are still dumping lots of power into new and unknown frequencies in every direction, very close to humans. I am going to disagree with you that the phone is always the bigger risk. Apparently Huawei 5G base stations are above 11 kilowatts, and these are being rolled out closer to humans than ever before. Sure, some research has been done, but the vast majority of it has been simply pointing some mm-waves at people for a few hours and checking if they're OK afterwards. I haven't seen anything for babies (baby skin is thin enough that mm-waves can go through the dermis, unlike adults) and not even a hint of any quality longitudinal study. And yes, I agree, the 5G hype/hate is so rabid that it makes it much harder to find any actual science on the internet about the subject. Personally, I don't have any agenda here. I was generally positive on 5G until I read the details in this great and informative article, and thought "wow, that's a lot of antennas, and a lot of new frequencies, and they're closer to us than ever before" If you know of any decent studies on this, I'm all ears - please drop any links.
  - g_p 6y ago
    Do you have a source for 11 kW base stations? Assuming we are talking about RF power output here, that is far higher than anything I've ever dealt with, and I'm not sure that it's at all right. A typical macro cell has 20 Watts of RF power output (for example). The relevant international standards are those from ICNIRP, and they've recently updated and expanded on these in great detail around safety margins of various frequencies. The UK telecoms regulator, Ofcom, recently did a safety study of actual deployed equipment, looking at measuring the RF output from base stations. Therefore I'm not sure where figures like 11 kW are coming from. Maybe there are some very hot (and inefficient) early base stations somewhere using 11 kW of mains power to produce 20 or 40 W of RF energy? But considering Huawei is heavily advertising 5G as being "greener", that wouldn't seem likely either. But even then, this is far higher than even the wall socket consumption of the equipment I've dealt with.
    - 6y ago
jrockway 6y ago
> Later I played with a device of only 0.01W emitting highly temporally coherent EM radiation. I had to put on safety equipment, because it had the possibility to harm me, including permanently damaging my sight. Are you talking about a laser? The mechanism of injury is the same as any RF injury -- localized heating. You stick a soldering iron on your retina, you're going to have permanent damage to your vision. The reason you only need a low power to do damage is because the power is spread out over a very small space, because your cells absorb the energy instead of letting it pass through, and because the retinal cells are extremely sensitive to temperature (a 10C increase is apparently all you need to permanently damage them). > Today I went out and enjoyed a warming 1000 W/m2 of hundreds of-nm EM radiation all over my body. Skin cancer from exposure to sunlight kills people. UV light has enough energy to rip electrons off of atoms in your body, causing much damage. ("Ionizing radiation.") From physics, we know where the boundary between ionizing light and non-ionizing light lies (in the middle of the UV spectrum). We know ionizing radiation is dangerous -- we understand the mechanism and the effects. (Notice how much safety equipment is involved in getting a dental x-ray. Minimum dose required to get the necessary image. The technician stands in a separate room lined with lead. You wear a lead vest to avoid exposure anywhere that's not needed for the image.) We also know when ionization stops happening. The energy carried by a photon is directly related to the wavelength of the light, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy. Below the middle of UV, photons don't have enough energy to ionize anything. Thus begins "non-ionizing radiation", which as far as we know, just burns you. You can, of course, die from burns, so it's not harmless. That is how microwaves cook foods -- water absorbs energy from 2.4GHz photons quite well ("dielectric heating"). The RF energy is converted to heat, and makes you a hot meal. But you sure wouldn't want to have your hand in there when it's on. Anyway, these effects are well understood. Any "5G is harmful" argument needs to propose a new mechanism for causing damage, or show how a known mechanism works at 5G frequencies. You could show that it turns out we were wrong about ionization (experimentally testable). You could show that certain tissues convert all the energy to heat (again experimentally testable). Sure, there could be a new mechanism for causing damage that only happens at some random location in the EM spectrum not related to any other effects. Someone has to be the first to discover it. Portal 2 has a good quote: "Marie Curie invented the theory of radioactivity, the treatment of radioactivity, and dying of radioactivity." It seems unlikely, though. You can do an infinite amount of research without discovering something that doesn't exist. People want fast YouTube downloads more than they want a 0% chance of risk. The risk is already so close to zero that it doesn't matter. > Look, the #1 post on HN right now is how highly trained, expert engineers accidentally made a bridge (one of the oldest human inventions, around for millennia) create an extremely loud eerie noise currently blanketing San Francisco. I believe they knew it would make a noise. They just didn't think anyone would care. A deeper problem is that humans are capable of creating much more complicated systems than nature. Ever debug some code and wonder "how did that ever work?" It's just a lot more complex than basic physics, and so there are a lot more unexpected results.

mintyc 6y ago

Lots of work has already been carried out. I think you misunderstand the concept of directional beamforming. The antennas in question in a phased array are 'elements' that cooperate to steer a more focussed beam in a given direction. The phone in your pocket when transmitting (whether 3G/4G/5G) is the biggest contribution to your personal health. Not a base station. I'd be concerned much more about low and mid band that can penetrate much further than high band. I am concerned about high band too (skin surface effects) but know nothing about this and assume work has been done to quantify and assess. My biggest problem both with 5G hype and those that seek to cast doubt on it is that both sides misrepresent the 'facts' to suit their agenda. Sadly that's true in all walks of life.

owenversteeg 6y ago
I've messed around with radio a bit, so I have some idea of beamforming. Basically, you use interference in the wavefront to your advantage. I am not sure what relevance it has here - at the end of the day, you are still dumping lots of power into new and unknown frequencies in every direction, very close to humans. I am going to disagree with you that the phone is always the bigger risk. Apparently Huawei 5G base stations are above 11 kilowatts, and these are being rolled out closer to humans than ever before. Sure, some research has been done, but the vast majority of it has been simply pointing some mm-waves at people for a few hours and checking if they're OK afterwards. I haven't seen anything for babies (baby skin is thin enough that mm-waves can go through the dermis, unlike adults) and not even a hint of any quality longitudinal study. And yes, I agree, the 5G hype/hate is so rabid that it makes it much harder to find any actual science on the internet about the subject. Personally, I don't have any agenda here. I was generally positive on 5G until I read the details in this great and informative article, and thought "wow, that's a lot of antennas, and a lot of new frequencies, and they're closer to us than ever before" If you know of any decent studies on this, I'm all ears - please drop any links.
- g_p 6y ago
  Do you have a source for 11 kW base stations? Assuming we are talking about RF power output here, that is far higher than anything I've ever dealt with, and I'm not sure that it's at all right. A typical macro cell has 20 Watts of RF power output (for example). The relevant international standards are those from ICNIRP, and they've recently updated and expanded on these in great detail around safety margins of various frequencies. The UK telecoms regulator, Ofcom, recently did a safety study of actual deployed equipment, looking at measuring the RF output from base stations. Therefore I'm not sure where figures like 11 kW are coming from. Maybe there are some very hot (and inefficient) early base stations somewhere using 11 kW of mains power to produce 20 or 40 W of RF energy? But considering Huawei is heavily advertising 5G as being "greener", that wouldn't seem likely either. But even then, this is far higher than even the wall socket consumption of the equipment I've dealt with.
  - 6y ago

jrockway 6y ago

> Later I played with a device of only 0.01W emitting highly temporally coherent EM radiation. I had to put on safety equipment, because it had the possibility to harm me, including permanently damaging my sight. Are you talking about a laser? The mechanism of injury is the same as any RF injury -- localized heating. You stick a soldering iron on your retina, you're going to have permanent damage to your vision. The reason you only need a low power to do damage is because the power is spread out over a very small space, because your cells absorb the energy instead of letting it pass through, and because the retinal cells are extremely sensitive to temperature (a 10C increase is apparently all you need to permanently damage them). > Today I went out and enjoyed a warming 1000 W/m2 of hundreds of-nm EM radiation all over my body. Skin cancer from exposure to sunlight kills people. UV light has enough energy to rip electrons off of atoms in your body, causing much damage. ("Ionizing radiation.") From physics, we know where the boundary between ionizing light and non-ionizing light lies (in the middle of the UV spectrum). We know ionizing radiation is dangerous -- we understand the mechanism and the effects. (Notice how much safety equipment is involved in getting a dental x-ray. Minimum dose required to get the necessary image. The technician stands in a separate room lined with lead. You wear a lead vest to avoid exposure anywhere that's not needed for the image.) We also know when ionization stops happening. The energy carried by a photon is directly related to the wavelength of the light, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy. Below the middle of UV, photons don't have enough energy to ionize anything. Thus begins "non-ionizing radiation", which as far as we know, just burns you. You can, of course, die from burns, so it's not harmless. That is how microwaves cook foods -- water absorbs energy from 2.4GHz photons quite well ("dielectric heating"). The RF energy is converted to heat, and makes you a hot meal. But you sure wouldn't want to have your hand in there when it's on. Anyway, these effects are well understood. Any "5G is harmful" argument needs to propose a new mechanism for causing damage, or show how a known mechanism works at 5G frequencies. You could show that it turns out we were wrong about ionization (experimentally testable). You could show that certain tissues convert all the energy to heat (again experimentally testable). Sure, there could be a new mechanism for causing damage that only happens at some random location in the EM spectrum not related to any other effects. Someone has to be the first to discover it. Portal 2 has a good quote: "Marie Curie invented the theory of radioactivity, the treatment of radioactivity, and dying of radioactivity." It seems unlikely, though. You can do an infinite amount of research without discovering something that doesn't exist. People want fast YouTube downloads more than they want a 0% chance of risk. The risk is already so close to zero that it doesn't matter. > Look, the #1 post on HN right now is how highly trained, expert engineers accidentally made a bridge (one of the oldest human inventions, around for millennia) create an extremely loud eerie noise currently blanketing San Francisco. I believe they knew it would make a noise. They just didn't think anyone would care. A deeper problem is that humans are capable of creating much more complicated systems than nature. Ever debug some code and wonder "how did that ever work?" It's just a lot more complex than basic physics, and so there are a lot more unexpected results.