New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects(androidpit.com)
androidpit.com
New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects
https://www.androidpit.com/5g-overheats-insect-antennas
67 comments
But isn't it a concern that should be thoroughly addressed before any government permits any use of the technology within its jurisdiction?
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...
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.
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.
The "mice in a microwave" studies wouldn't need to resort to extreme dosages if they could cause cancer with realistic exposure levels. Yet they always resort to extreme dosages. Reading them makes me feel more comfortable around my cell phone, not less comfortable.
I wonder if a good way to illustrate or dispel the harmfulness of millimeter wave radio would be to compare the wattage/sq ft covered. How much energy is carried by these waves compared to 900Mhz or 2.4Ghz radio ?
Besides the 'boy who cried wolf' nature of radio causing cancer, I'd also like to know the power consumption for the extreme density required to relay gigabit+ connections across town, I think I heard the range between towers is something like 500 ft? There are, ostensibly, not lower power devices to be processing all these connections.
Besides the 'boy who cried wolf' nature of radio causing cancer, I'd also like to know the power consumption for the extreme density required to relay gigabit+ connections across town, I think I heard the range between towers is something like 500 ft? There are, ostensibly, not lower power devices to be processing all these connections.
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 addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”
> 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.
> “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 addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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 small margin for harm considering every human is potentially carrying a device and using it at the same time occurs multiple times during the day.
Does this mean in trains or public building where multiple phones are present, even hundreds of phones? 4x seems rather a small margin for harm considering every human is potentially carrying a device and using it at the same time occurs multiple times during the day.
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.
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.
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.
" By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone"
Along with the rest of their body.
Along with the rest of their body.
Paper here (not sure if this is the one cited by the article, but sounds like it): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3
What 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 agency that happened to work in the public sphere? Is there a competing technology stack?
Is it a just one of many conspiracy theories cooked by a Kremlin agency that happened to work in the public sphere? Is there a competing technology stack?
I don’t condone the attitudes of people like your uncle or the hyper-sensationalized news that feeds them, but I’m equally discouraged by your response. Why shouldn’t we be skeptical of new technologies and their impact on our environment or ourselves?
We should encourage research like this, despite the overreactions that might ensue. The idea that we fully understand the effects of our technology in aggregate is prideful and short-sighted.
We should encourage research like this, despite the overreactions that might ensue. The idea that we fully understand the effects of our technology in aggregate is prideful and short-sighted.
So you're suggesting RT is behind a Swiss study?
No, he's not suggesting that. His comment is a response to the questions asked by its direct parent, not a comment on the submitted article.
Buuuuut that was written with something of a suggestion that this study or this report about the study is a bit of FUD about 5g, no?
It sure seems like a straight line to me.
It sure seems like a straight line to me.
same here...whenever I see a lot of fear mongering flying around about something new, I ask myself what iron rice bowl is being threatened by such new things? In this case, I would guess that comcast, et al is being threatened by 5g...
Who benefits from anti-vaccination or flat-earth?
Conspiracy theories are probably a lucrative industry if you get enough of a following.
Conspiracy theories are probably a lucrative industry if you get enough of a following.
Just like any negative effect; It's influencers who get paid to spread anti-vaccination beliefs even if they don't believe it.
See: far right/left, and other unusual controversial topics.
See: far right/left, and other unusual controversial topics.
[deleted]
I 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)
If it's going to harm wildlife, the technology should be forbidden, without qualification or exception.
If not, I don't feel the need for faster speeds than what I get, but I would be very interested in getting more data per month at the same (or lower) monthly price. If a cellular provider could give me internet connectivity (LTE speeds) at a price of something like $1 per gigabyte I would drop my household's cable service in favor of that right away.
If not, I don't feel the need for faster speeds than what I get, but I would be very interested in getting more data per month at the same (or lower) monthly price. If a cellular provider could give me internet connectivity (LTE speeds) at a price of something like $1 per gigabyte I would drop my household's cable service in favor of that right away.
By that logic, we shouldn’t build cities or buildings. I am pretty sure most people do not agree with this position.
You're right, I articulated my position extremely poorly. The needs of people and civilization should often win out over the needs of wildlife. But almost always in a way that sacrifices only wildlife within a confined spatial region and almost never in a way that threatens an entire species.
If there are species living around the globe that might not be able to continue their current role in the global ecosystem in a world where 5G is pervasive, then we should not allow the use of 5G in the vast majority of the world. The consequences, for humans, via trophic cascade or whatever, would be extremely uncertain. Are the benefits of 5G really compelling enough to brave them? Certainly they are not compelling enough to me.
If there are species living around the globe that might not be able to continue their current role in the global ecosystem in a world where 5G is pervasive, then we should not allow the use of 5G in the vast majority of the world. The consequences, for humans, via trophic cascade or whatever, would be extremely uncertain. Are the benefits of 5G really compelling enough to brave them? Certainly they are not compelling enough to me.
Not quite.
Cities and buildings provide tremendous benefits. These benefits, presumably, outweigh the costs of harming wildlife to construct them.
The OP is arguing that the benefits of 5G are objectively minor and therefore not worth the cost of causing mass harm to a broad swath of wildlife.
I agree with the OP's position -- I will gladly keep my ~50Mbit 4G speeds if it means we will prevent the collapse of various insect populations.
Cities and buildings provide tremendous benefits. These benefits, presumably, outweigh the costs of harming wildlife to construct them.
The OP is arguing that the benefits of 5G are objectively minor and therefore not worth the cost of causing mass harm to a broad swath of wildlife.
I agree with the OP's position -- I will gladly keep my ~50Mbit 4G speeds if it means we will prevent the collapse of various insect populations.
Yeah, I feel that "without qualification or exception" is not a tenable position. We harm wildlife all the time: ideally, we don't excessively harm wildlife (where "excessive" is a constantly evolving standard).
A very large part of it is Marketing people dying to have something new to sell people. LTE has reached market saturation, so 5G is the only thing they can use to sell people new phones and new data plans. They don’t care that they have setup this perverse system where they sell people on faster speeds, but then add data caps to deter them from using it.
A less sinister take might be that faster speeds allow each device to get off the air faster, enabling more devices to be used in the same area. But that’s mostly a technical solution and I highly doubt the advantages rise to the level that the Business side has started pushing it. Salespeople just see the commissions.
A less sinister take might be that faster speeds allow each device to get off the air faster, enabling more devices to be used in the same area. But that’s mostly a technical solution and I highly doubt the advantages rise to the level that the Business side has started pushing it. Salespeople just see the commissions.
> "Marketing people dying to have something new to sell people"
Not just marketing people. Everyone at companies making the equipment (Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei), the chipsets (Qualcomm), and rolling out the networks (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint) wants a piece of the pie.
Not just marketing people. Everyone at companies making the equipment (Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei), the chipsets (Qualcomm), and rolling out the networks (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint) wants a piece of the pie.
Given that 5Ghz wifi barely goes through walls I couldn't believe when I read 5G was being tested on mm wave (24 to 86Ghz). Seems to me the point of it is to install a transceiver on every light pole to have higher resolution surveillance.
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 numbers of users with 5G would make fixed infrastructure for the last mile redundant. We'll see.
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 numbers of users with 5G would make fixed infrastructure for the last mile redundant. We'll see.
I'll take actually getting LTE speeds consistently (and getting the advertised speeds from my ISP) over a move to 5g any day.
It’s not for faster speeds for individual users. It’s for maintaining reasonable speeds for when everyone’s default mode of communication is real-time wireless 4k video streaming; that is to say, preserving the current level of service for early adopters as our usage patterns become mainstream (and thus consume 5-10x more bandwidth in aggregate).
Also, things load pretty slow right now.
Also, things load pretty slow right now.
Interesting. 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 5G can't possibly have some negative effects, but so far, we have no reason to believe it.
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 5G can't possibly have some negative effects, but so far, we have no reason to believe it.
I'm fairly sure that cell phones are mostly harmless, but the argument that the radiation is not ionizing is a poor one. We know that tissue absorbs some of the radiation, with a fairly strong dependence on the frequency. Biological systems are messy and poorly understood and I find it plausible that slightly wiggling the molecules around disturbs some reaction pathway or other. Given the prevalence of cell phones thoroughly testing this hypothesis is totally warranted imho.
Cellular radiation is tested very thoroughly. So far, the only observed effect is a slight thermal effect at very high received power, as we'd expect.
We can't prove it's completely safe, but nobody yet has been able to demonstrate any compelling evidence that it's unsafe.
We can't prove it's completely safe, but nobody yet has been able to demonstrate any compelling evidence that it's unsafe.
Yeah, those experiments are why I'm pretty sure that cellphones are safe.
The question is, can they have negative effects on insects. Given that under the right conditions a microwave oven can create plasma in a grape, it seems like something to look into before we fry insects, populations of which have already declined significantly.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_...
https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_...
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.
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.
WHO lists many many things as possibly being carcinogens. Remember that the world health organization had coffee listed as a possible carcinogen for 25 years before it was removed in 2016.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-health-organization-to-dr...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-health-organization-to-dr...
From your perspective, I suppose everything is possibly carcinogenic since you don't care about whether technically speaking something "can't" cause cancer. I would give more credibility to the numerous scientific studies that have look at this than the words (that could be applied to literally anything) of some working group associated with The WHO. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electrom...
Give that cancer rates in the developed world are skyrocketing (>50% of people will have caner in my lifetime), but that everything is "safe", yes, I'm more than a little skeptical.
Except for the fact that this isn't true. "Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006‐2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007‐2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21551
Most of the increase has come from our increased life expectancy since getting cancer is very strongly linked with age. Lifestyle choices have also contributed. An aging population and greater detection will result in more cancer cases.
Most of the increase has come from our increased life expectancy since getting cancer is very strongly linked with age. Lifestyle choices have also contributed. An aging population and greater detection will result in more cancer cases.
They're not "thought" to be non-ionizing. They are non-ionizing.
Could there be some other mechanism that we don't understand yet and haven't observed yet that could be harmful? Yes, of course. But nobody has been able to provide any evidence yet.
Could there be some other mechanism that we don't understand yet and haven't observed yet that could be harmful? Yes, of course. But nobody has been able to provide any evidence yet.
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. Wifi, Bluetooth, etc. There is tons of research of how radio and other waves effect the human body.
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. Wifi, Bluetooth, etc. There is tons of research of how radio and other waves effect the human body.
Seems like microwave energy going into water could be a problem if the water is in a gnat or moth or butterfly.
Above 20GHz you mean.
Does FCC work with NIH or other agencies before they approve frequencies like 5G ? There was a recent story about a WiMAX antenna near a school and the parents suspected it was the cause of high cancer rates of students in that school.
[deleted]
I cannot find a link to the study or studies mentioned.
I'm not surprised. Millimeter wave can do that among other things.
And 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?
Inaccurate article.
sergiotapia(1)
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.
I really doubt that much effort has been spent on determining the effect of constant, pervasive mm-wave signals on insects.
yeah, this level of fearmongering almost certainly means that some huge business(es) is having its business model threatened by 5g...is it the ISPs that are being threatened by 5g?
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.