
5g Detrimental to Insects - ensiferum
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3
======
cnorthwood
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.

~~~
arendtio
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
What about other mechanisms of action?
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/)

------
PaulHoule
Everything has resonances:

"The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range
of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently when the
whole body is exposed."

[https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-
technology/electromagnetic-c...](https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-
technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-
safety/faq/rf-safety#Q4)

As a radio ham I am familiar with the 2 meter band which is at 140-144 MHz; a
quarter wave antennas is pretty effective and that would be 0.5 meters which
is "human scale".

Bugs are smaller so they are going to resonate at a higher frequency. You'd
expect something that is a few millimeters in size to couple to millimeter
waves; in that paper they flesh it out in detail.

------
nerdponx
Why was this flagged/dead? It's a valid submission and an important piece of
research; we just needed a moderator to change the title.

------
rmbryan
I wonder what they mean by "insect phantoms"? Probably not what I imagine.

~~~
DiseasedBadger
Usually a phantom is a real physical object, with particular properties
similar to a desired subject. The phantom is experimented with instead of the
actual object.

Because you made the phantom, you have "ground truth". Whereas, for example,
there is no way to validate your reconstruction of a living person's brain.
Because you can't measure it without xrays, which might be the thing you're
trying to improve.

But if you xray a phantom, you know what you _should_ find.

