
Inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of 5G wireless technology - bookofjoe
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html
======
zw123456
I think there is a lot of mis-information floating around here. There are 2
"flavors" of 5G per 3Gpp 1) FR1 which is 5G operating on low/mid band (below
6Ghhz) and 2) FR2 which is 5G operating above 6Ghz

If the sub 6Ghz band, 5G is basically the same as 4G LTE, similar power levers
(sometimes lower depending on some technical details beyond the scope I can go
into here). But there are some significant technical improvements. A lower
TTI, the TTI is the interval in which the modulation and coding schemes can
change. In 4G LTE the TTI is 1ms, for 5G it is 100us. Also, the sub channels
can effectively be smaller. The benefit here is to capacity. Think about
protocols that may have small packet sizes, eg. Votle (voice over LTE, sort of
like VOIP) or TCP SYN/ACK messages. If you devote an entire resource block
(TTI, ie. time slice and sub-channel allocation) to a small packet you
effectively waste a lot of spectrum. These are a few very simple examples of
the various improvements that 5G in the sub-6Ghz has. But none of these
changes to the protocols have any effect whatsoever on the effective radiation
or would change the effects to humans which, in my view has been clearly been
shown to be safe.

Now, the FR2 5G which typically operates in the mm-wave bands, for example
28Ghz. All of the above features and more apply, but one very important extra
feature of the small wavelength is that it makes it possible to utilize beam
forming antenna arrays, specifically Phased Array Antennas or Meta-material
antennas. The reason is because the antenna elements (think each antenna
element as a sort of RF pixel) has to be spaced 1/2 lambda (wavelength) apart
so the physical size in the low bands is simply impractical but at higher
frequencies the wavelengths are short enough that these antenna arrays are
small (on the order of less than 1 foot square) and can have high gains and
narrow beam widths. Now, if you think about this, that means that the beams
are narrow (think about it like light, RF and light are both electro-magnetic
waves but at different frequencies). This ability to control the beams means
that the energy can be much lower. A joke that is often made in the industry
is that mm-wave cannot propagate out of a wet paper bag. This is literally
true, a wet piece of paper completely stops a mm-wave beam. That means that it
cannot get through a pane of glass (or it is severely attenuated) and does not
penetrate human skin, much less so than the lower bands. The benefit of the
mm-wave is mostly that the antennas can be smaller and there is just a lot
more spectrum. The benefit of more spectrum is of course Shannon's law C ~
B*SINR that is, the capacity in bps is proportional to the amount of spectrum
B times the Signal to Noise and Interference ratio. So having more spectrum is
a big deal.

All of what I am explaining here I am hoping, that the highly intelligent HN
readers will understand is that the sub-6Ghz (FR1) 5G is essentially no
different from 4GLTE except that there are a number of protocol and other
improvements that increase capacity. In fact, the radios are the same in many
cases and it is simply a software upgrade (many of these radios are
essentially SDR's).

The mm-wave (FR2) is what is really radically different from traditional 4GLTE
(although, it has been used for other wireless use cases for a long time such
as LMDS, but that is another long story, in fact, much of the mm-wave spectrum
comes from older LMDS applications). But newer technologies such as PAA
(phased array antennas, borrowed from DoD military) offer significant
increases in capacity and bandwidth at much lower and safer energy levels than
previously possible from FR1 systems.

I know this is a very long post, but this is a very high level overview of the
5G technology. There are many other aspects and exciting new applications that
are far beyond the scope that could be covered here. The most important issue
in my view is that the fears and the propaganda that 5G has some sort of
health related issues is founded in ignorance of the physics of the technology
IMHO.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
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
> 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
> 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
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/Standard...](http://99.51.244.77:823/YourFreeLibrary/RF%20Safety/Standards/keynote5dawoud.pdf)

[2]
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/00...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/37/4/001/meta)

[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
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.

~~~
itcrowd
I've addressed the Lancet Planetary Health study here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20457998](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20457998)

The Guardian article cites Henry Lai, but I could not find his paper (was it
published at all?). It also cites _Environmental Health Perspectives_
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/)

They reviewed not 326 but only 59 studies with 12 funded fully by industry.
The statistical power is much lower, although I agree with you that there is a
worrying trend that should be properly investigated.

Additionally, the potential conflict of interest you mention in the papers is
interesting. I didn't go fully into their backgrounds as you did, which is
interesting. I would be hesitant to conclude "it appears that no INDEPENDENT
studies on 5G have been done" because my list of references is very non-
exhaustive and only the result of a cursory Google Scholar search.

Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have
provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned)
are not harmful. I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or
anyone else that provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful
about it and b) the level of harm this mechanism should have on users.

~~~
danielst
Thank you itcrowd for your comments and your sincere and balanced approach,
which I respect even though I do not at present share your viewpoint. Thank
you also for looking into the Lancet and Guardian articles. Regarding the
respectability of this subjournal of Lancet, that is useful information.
Regarding the Guardian article: after a very brief search, I have also not
been able to locate the actual academic article, though there are many
references to it in other general-interest articles on the internet. The 326
number referred to Lai's study; the 59 studies refer to the separate article
from Environmental Health Perspectives that you link to.

I have been following this topic for some time and in everything I have read,
I have (until today) never encountered a single reference to a study on the
health effects of 5G (and have encountered many statements that 5G has not yet
been studied for health effects), thus my initial assertion that there haven't
been any studies. What I have encountered is many government and industry
spokespeople and mainstream media outlets saying that 5G is safe, without ever
citing a single study to support their claim. The few studies that turned up
in your brief Google Scholar search are problematic, as I pointed out, due to
conflicts of interest.

Regarding your last paragraph (I will comment in two parts):

> Finally, the point I want to make is that in this whole discussion, I have
> provided scientific evidence that 5G radiation levels (<300 GHz, as planned)
> are not harmful.

I don't want to seem uncivil, but I think I missed this evidence? Thus far we
have found three studies that address possible health effects from 5G, all of
which have problems with conflicts of interest, correct? If there have been no
other studies directly testing 5G, what is the scientific evidence (not
theorizing, but actual empirical studies) that has been provided?

And:

> I have not seen a single scientific paper posted by you or anyone else that
> provides a) a mechanism to explain what would be harmful about it and b) the
> level of harm this mechanism should have on users.

Firstly, not a single scientific paper has been posted because there haven't
been any, yes? (setting aside the 3 we spoke of above). One of the essential
points here is that this simply hasn't been studied (apart from the
aforementioned problematic studies, unless there are others that we have not
found, and that the various parties assuring the public that 5G is safe are
likely also unaware of given that they have never cited them either), and the
technology is being deployed anyway.

Regarding our ignorance of a "mechanism to explain what would be harmful about
it": I would tend to place more trust in empirical studies -- what actually
happens, are any effects produced? In terms of understanding the mechanism of
how it happens, scientists may not have discovered this yet. A current gap in
our knowledge of some of the mechanisms of the natural world does not mean
that those mechanisms, and the effects that they produce, do not exist. In the
meantime (i.e. before we discover the mechanisms), it seems imperative that
the empirical effects are determined.

~~~
itcrowd
Thanks danielst for the kind words. Huge respect for your civil responses.

That said. I did a bit of a deep-dive into the literature and may need to
somewhat revise my stance.

First, let me try to summarize our common ground and our differences. Below
are the points I think we agree on (let me know if not!):

1\. 5G does not have ionizing radiation

2\. The well-known mechanism of heating due to millimeter-wave radiation is so
minimal as to be negligible. I.e. the heating itself is not the mechanism by
which damage can be done. To substantiate that claim further, there is a very
accessible article from 2000 [1].

3\. Sources of funding and conflicts of interest are a problem.

Regarding this last point, I think you more strongly agree with the statement
and are more likely to reject outcomes from industry-funded or industry-
affiliated researchers. I am a little more hesitant. I think we can debate
this, but I have done my best to include sources in this post which do not
seem to come from industry but from government research labs (i.e. public
funding) or mixed funding (public + private money).

Now, what I think we don't agree on:

4\. There may be other biological mechanisms that are activated / enhanced /
suppressed by millimeter-wave radiation. These must be investigated before
widespread 5G rollout.

This is where it gets complicated. First, I did a PubMed search for 5g+safety
([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(5g%5BTitle%5D)+AN...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=\(5g%5BTitle%5D\)+AND+safety%5BTitle%5D))
and it turns up 3 relevant articles [2], [3] and [4] (one search result is
unrelated to 5G).

Paper [2] is not an article but a letter to the editor. No novel research.

Paper [3] warns of exposure to very short, high-power pulses (heating effect).

Paper [4] is a comment on paper [3], saying basically that a) these pulses are
not used in 5G and b) new standards forbid these short high-power pulses.

We need to look further.

I somehow stumbled on [5] and [6] (don't know the search terms anymore).
According to your standards, [6] should not be included since C.L. Russell
works for the "Physicians for Safe Technology" that has an anti-5G stance, and
cannot be considered neutral. (See:
[https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/](https://mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/) and
[https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-
russellmd/](https://mdsafetech.org/advisory-board/cindy-russellmd/))

That leaves [5], which I think is a good summary of many potential biological
effects that millimeter waves could have (note: some of the referenced studies
in [5] deal with high radiation levels, but some are with low radiation
levels).

The review seems thorough, and that is where I should alter my previous
statements a bit: I think there is reason to believe that 5G _may_ have some
other effects that are not well-investigated and for which the mechanism is
unknown. However, I agree with the author of the study [see 7] that 5G rollout
should not be stopped because of this. The situation should be monitored
closely by professionals and more research should be done at the same time.

I will leave you with the part of the conclusions from [5]:

> In the respect of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, the
> development of new RF-EMF communication networks should be paralleled by
> adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the
> field of environmental health, by a revision of the existing exposure limits
> and by policies aimed to reduce the level of risk in the exposed population.

> On the other hand, an adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms
> linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current
> clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to
> the role of extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk(Wu et
> al., 2016) and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable
> diseases(Pruss-Ustun et al., 2017).

[1] Ryan et. al, 2000, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION OF MILLIMETER WAVE LENGTH:
POTENTIAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATING TO SURFACE HEATING,
[https://journals.lww.com/health-
physics/pages/articleviewer....](https://journals.lww.com/health-
physics/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2000&issue=02000&article=00006&type=abstract)

[2] McClelland, 2018, The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian
Roulette?,
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30012534)

[3] Neufeld and Kuster, 2018, Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-
Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal
Dose,
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338)

[4] Foster, 2019, Comments on Neufeld and Kuster: Systematic Derivation of
Safety Limits for Time-varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical
Models and Thermal Dose,
[https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642](https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=31135642)

[5] Di Ciaula, Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health
implications?, 2018,
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S143846391...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub)

[6] Russel, CL, 2018, 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health
and environmental implications,
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646)

[7] In an interview in Italian he said the following:

The scientific evidence available on the consequences of exposure to this type
of frequency, although preliminary, is worrying, because also in this case
effects like genetic alterations, protein synthesis and other well-documented
biological consequences have been documented. No one wants to put a limit on
progress but we should associate the introduction of these technologies with
careful monitoring from an environmental and health point of view, revising
down the exposure limits imposed by law and taking all possible precautions.
([https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-
elettromagnetici-e-...](https://www.ohga.it/esposizione-ai-campi-
elettromagnetici-e-5g-intervista-al-dottor-agostino-di-ciaula/) and Google
translate)

~~~
l8rlump
This is what HN is all about for me. Great conversation and great info :)

~~~
danielst
Yes, I am also really appreciating this forum (which I just discovered) where
people can have truly thoughtful and intelligent exchanges.

------
jiggawatts
The reason that this is absurd is that there's this popular notion that 5G is
fundamentally new technology. The reality is that it is literally just radio.
You know, like "the wireless" from 1905, which is the same fundamental thing
as 4G, 3G, 2G, LTE, Analog, WiFi, radar, satellite, and a bazillion other
things that have repeatedly and conclusively been shown to not cause harm at
typical power levels. Sure, a kilowatt microwave emitter will literally cook
you, but yeah... so will a gas fire! Don't put your hand in the fire you idiot
and you'll be fine. Get a grip.

Meanwhile there's people frothing at the mouth and endlessly repeating "We
just don't know! It could be dangerous!" is equally daft. A little-known
German scientist called Einstein won a Nobel prize back in 1921 for showing
that wavelengths longer than a certain cut-off (typically in the UV light
range) simply do not cause ionisation, irrespective of power levels. Radio
simply cannot give you cancer. It's been proven. We understand the physics.
It's been tested to death.

Stop. Saying. We. Don't. know. It's YOU that doesn't know, because you're
apparently blithely unaware of the last century of human progress. Catch up to
the rest of us.

Meanwhile the real risk of cell phones is idiots texting and driving. That
KILLS and MAIMS people. I bet 90% of the people arguing against 5G technology
have done that at least a few times...

~~~
swebs
>Radio simply cannot give you cancer. It's been proven. We understand the
physics. It's been tested to death.

Actually, high exposure to radio sources (2G and 3G) have recently been found
to cause cancer in male rats. It's unclear yet whether this effect carries
over to humans.

[https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/11/feature/1-feature-
radia...](https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2018/11/feature/1-feature-
radiation/index.htm)

~~~
itcrowd
Yeah, the study is widely criticized. Ars Technica gave a nice breakdown of it
here: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/draft-of-us-
governme...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/draft-of-us-government-
cell-phone-safety-study-backtracks-on-earlier-claims/)

> To sum up the findings: a bunch of cancers that aren't statistically
> different from those found in the control group; a high-fatality control
> group; an elevated incidence of a single type of cancer, only in males, at
> exposures that are well above any that a human should experience.

~~~
swebs
To be fair, that's just one guy on a tech blog viewing a early draft of the
findings. Here's a result of the peer review of the findings by a panel of
experts:

[https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/a...](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/actions20180328_508.pdf)

>Panel 2 voted to recommend (8yes, 3no, 0 abstentions) the conclusion, clear
evidence of carcinogenic activity of male Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats based on
incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart

------
anm89
I've never seen an issue with seemingly respectable sources making such strong
conflicting claims on both sides. I've definitely seen multiple sources on
here from people with seemingly more technical backgrounds than this author
saying this is definitely something to worry about. I have no idea what to
believe here.

~~~
crummy
Last time I got into a discussion on Facebook about 5G someone ended up
responding with this article:

[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196\(18\)30221-3/fulltext)

The Lancet, from what I understand, is a pretty respectable journal and now
I'm not sure what to make of the issue. Most of the anti-5G videos share a lot
in common with antivax conspiracy theory stuff but this article seems well
cited. I'm still a skeptic but wasn't sure how to respond.

~~~
zeristor
From the journal that published Dr. Andrew Wakefield research on Autism and
MMR?

I would hope it’s improved, but I wouldn’t bet my life on it.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
If there is any opinion about Lancet, regarding to the Wakefield story that
you should get - is that you should hold Lancet in a higher regard, not lower
- they retracted the study!

The study was published with fraudulent data which Lancet could not check
immediately. In such a an environment a good scientific journal should publish
the study regardless of how outrageous the title sounds. There are scientific
truths that come out all the time that first sound outlandish. If the journals
would only publish the studies which support the status quo in their area, we
would never have any real vertical progress only small horizointal
improvements.

Then, when it was actually shown by a due process that the Wakefield study was
fraudulent - the Lancet, again, as any respectable scientific journal should,
retracted the study and published the retraction. This is exactly how the
scientific process should work.

So in other words, don't dicourage some study just because you don't like the
outcome. Keep checking it further using the scientific method and due process,
review, replication etc. If actually shows to be false, random or fraudulent -
then retract it.

You should be happy there are journals like Lancet, not be more suspicious of
it. That's how science works best.

------
nabla9
As mentioned in this article, Russia is pushing this information as part of
their propaganda directed towards the west.

[https://euvsdisinfo.eu/figure-of-the-week-5g/](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/figure-
of-the-week-5g/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-
safety-h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-
health-russia.html)

~~~
alfromspace
Sometimes I think Russia has my best interests at heart more than the USA.

------
Hansenq
I'm surprised that this article doesn't talk about a real, scientific, threat
about 5G: that it occupies the same frequency spectrum as water vapor,
affecting how accurate satellites that track clouds and water in the
atmosphere can be.

Given that these satellites have contributed significantly to how much more
accurate weather forecasts have gotten in the past 10 years, being unable to
predict storms could arguably have a significant human health impact (ie. not
being able to announce evacuations, sending aid to the right regions, etc)

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01305-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01305-4)

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-5g-wireles...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-5g-wireless-
networks-threaten-weather-forecasts/)

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/5g-networks-
will...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/5g-networks-will-likely-
interfere-with-us-weather-satellites-navy-warns/)

~~~
DaniloDias
“Surprised?”

I’m sincerely curious. Based on all of your experiences with how tech
journalism covers tech, why are you surprised that this article doesn’t
address an issue unrelated to health?

I am not trolling or attacking personally- I am sincere: I’m super interested
in understanding how divorced from other people’s perspective I am. I think
this journalist was tasked with writing a story about how the health fears for
5g have not planned out in any reproducible study. It is obvious to me that
there are powerful economic forces on both sides of this issue, and it is
poisoning reporting. It seems outrageously obvious that talking about weather
is not going to be addressed in this article

~~~
kccqzy
Feigning surprise is a rhetorical device, and a useful one. I'm surprised that
more people didn't know about this.

~~~
DaniloDias
When @dang has a history of claiming legitimate questions are a personal
attack, it bears some context.

~~~
dang
When people make these claims, they never supply links. What's an example of
"claiming legitimate questions are a personal attack"?

~~~
DaniloDias
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289975](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289975)

~~~
dang
"You are out of touch", "Labeling people that you don’t understand", "get out
of your bubble", "You are deluding yourself", and "tossing a mr. yuck sticker
on people you don’t understand" are all examples of personal swipes.

~~~
DaniloDias
There is a huge difference between calling someone an asshole and calling out
shitty behavior.

If you can’t call bad behavior bad, then what is the value of your ethics?
There is right and wrong- but you can call it out without demeaning people.

I don’t have any shame for this and I think you are wrong.

------
johnmcd3
I've often heard people say that we know that these radio waves are 100% safe
because the heating effects of non-ionizing radiation at these doses is not a
significant risk.

However, the article itself mentions that "novel EHF [medical] therapies" use
only slightly higher (and also "non-ionizing") radio frequencies.

Per the Wikipedia article on EHF therapies, this seemingly similar radiation
appears to have studied, proven biological effect: "Low intensity (usually 10
mW/cm2 or less) electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency may be
used in human medicine for the treatment of diseases. For example, 'A brief,
low-intensity MMW exposure can change cell growth and proliferation rates,
activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable
membranes and peripheral receptors.'[14] This treatment is particularly
associated with the range of 40 – 70 GHz.[15]"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency#Medic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency#Medicine)

Can someone explain to me how we are so confident 5G is safe, if similar,
40-70 GHz radiation at 10mW/cm2 has been shown to "change cell growth and
proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus,
function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors"?

Why shouldn't there be risk of similar effect at slightly lower frequencies
and somewhat lower power?

(To be clear, I believe 5G to be safe with very high probability. But I wish I
better knew how to reconcile this information and explain it to others who are
much more skeptical.)

~~~
gshulegaard
This is my go to reference.

[https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/r...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet)

~~~
redis_mlc
1) The money quote from your link is:

"The [WHO] Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic
to humans, ..."

2) You're gonna love this ... phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at
3" to 4" from your ear. In other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.

So we're a long way from proving phones are safe.

You would even be excused if you thought there was a conspiracy to cover up
the risk, because nobody is trying very hard to test them as commonly used -
against the ear or in your pocket next to your skin for 16 hours a day.

~~~
the_pwner224
> phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In
> other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.

In most modern phones the antenna is at the bottom (or at the very least the
iPhone and Samsung Galaxy line - but I think also most other). That's a few
inches from the ear.

I was a bit surprised to learn this and now keep my phone right-side-up in my
pocket, to keep the EM radiation source away from the balls.

~~~
sooheon
Apple also tests at 5mm separation
([https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone11,2/en/](https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone11,2/en/)).

------
offmycloud
It is unfortunate that the NYT is confusing 5G, which is a certain version
(15?) of the LTE advanced specification, with the use of millimeter wave
frequencies. Here in the U.S. at least one major carrier is deploying 5G on
frequencies below 1 GHz.

~~~
bjackman
As someone who currently works in wireless comms I think we can say "5G" is a
pretty meaningless term. I presume, as you suggest, it originally referred to
the new LTE but honestly the definition "literally any wireless tech created
between about 2015 and about 2020" seems to be universally accepted!

------
Spooky23
I suspect that the health concerns are FUD to prevent conversation about the
real problem — WTF is this poorly propagating technology for?

Answer is easy — kill cable, and move us all to more profitable, metered
wireless services.

------
laufj
This is PR from the 5G networks. There have been groups of scientists that
have published concerns about the health risks of 5G. They did not get their
information from one chart.

~~~
jiggawatts
Citation needed.

------
deogeo
> At higher radio frequencies, the skin acts as a barrier, shielding the
> internal organs, including the brain, from exposure.

So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer? Or is
non-ionizing radiation safe regardless of shielding? I wish they had written
this article better, because as it stands, it's a mess. If it wasn't for the
mention that there was no increase in cancer observed as cell-phones gained
popularity (which is at frequencies lower than 5G), it would be entirely
unpersuasive.

Would it be too much to ask for blasting a few thousand rats with 5G?

Edit: Skimming
[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050)
linked by itcrowd, I got the vague impression that biological tests were done
roughly as I'd hope. It would be nice if the Times article devoted more ink to
studies showing 5G to be safe, instead of 95% focusing on how the claims that
it is dangerous are shaky, and barely mentioning studies proving its safety.

~~~
itcrowd
Let me try to clear it up. (sorry, it got a bit long)

First, the skin (and skull and clothing .. etc.) does act as a barrier, which
is why the graph that is shown in the article is flawed (this is mentioned).
It shows absorption of microwave radiation in the grey matter of the brain,
but it doesn't account for the skin and skull that blocks it.

There are two major effects of radiation: ionization (think X-ray imaging) and
heating (think microwave oven). Ionization is irrelevant for 5G, because the
frequency is way too low. Heating, on the other hand, happens at many
frequencies. For example, a microwave oven is at ~2.4 GHz, just like Wi-Fi
(which can also operate at 5 GHz).

That said, the heating is dependent on how much power is transmitted and how
well it is absorbed by the skin. For example, a low-power source (Wi-Fi
antenna) doesn't fry your skin like a microwave oven because a) the power is
too low and b) it mostly reflects off the surface of the skin.

The power levels that 5G needs to operate at are quite low and the reflection
off the skin is quite high. This is summarized nicely in the reference I gave
in another comment here [1].

To answer your specific questions:

> So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer? Or is
> non-ionizing radiation safe regardless of shielding?

The ionization effect is not present due to low frequency (see above), the
heating effect should be considered, but is minimal (see reference). The
authors of [1] note specifically that the skin area is safe, but the eyes may
be more vulnerable if the devices operate at large power and are close-by. So,
this is not dangerous for consumers but _may_ be dangerous for workers near
antennas. However, the radiation level must be very high, and the distance
very short. In my reading of the paper, it is not a danger for commercial
telecom applications.

> Would it be too much to ask for blasting a few thousand rats with 5G?

That is not my field of expertise..

[1]
[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050)

~~~
deogeo
"So am I to understand 5G causes merely skin cancer, not brain cancer?" was
mostly meant as a critique of the article, since they use shielding by skin as
a defense.

Otherwise yes, I'm aware that 5G is non-ionizing, and produces negligible
heating, which doesn't leave many straight-forward ways it could affect
biology (maybe EM fields adversely affect protein folding?). For those you
pretty much need experimental studies, but looks like they've been conducted,
and turned up nothing.

~~~
XorNot
EM fields are not affecting protein folding. Moreover this is really just you
reacting to something that feels incomprehensible and invisible while
discounting something that seems normal - sunlight - even though it's orders
of magnitude more powerful, causes more heating, and is directly linked to
cancer in the right ranges.

But no one expresses concern about visible light causing damage from localised
heating or the EM fields of it disrupting protein folding (hold a torch up to
your hand - your body is quite translucent to visible light).

~~~
deogeo
> EM fields are not affecting protein folding.

Why not? The energy needed to affect that is lower than ionization energy, so
they could.

And I'm not "reacting" to anything. 60 GHz radiation is sufficiently different
from sunlight that it might plausibly have a different effect on us (such as
by interacting with some low-energy absorption peak of a protein that visible
light does not interact with due to its higher energy, or by penetrating
deeper into tissue than visible light can).

It turns out studies show it is not harmful. But they conducted actual studies
to show that - they didn't dismiss it outright "because sunlight".

~~~
Dylan16807
Sunlight bathes you in multiple watts in the same narrow frequency range, so
it couldn't do _that_ much.

~~~
deogeo
Surely it's a different narrow frequency range? Otherwise sunlight would act
as a signal jammer, a source of noise that drowned out our wireless signals?

~~~
Dylan16807
You can filter out a stable amount pretty easily but oops I just checked the
blackbody math again and an exponent flipped when I changed one of the ranges
while everything else stayed almost the same, I screwed up and ignore
everything I said.

~~~
deogeo
Hehe, happens :)

But, suppose the sun _did_ interfere - how would you filter this out? Due to
the black-body nature of the source, the amplitude would be stable, but the
phase wouldn't be - you'd get entirely uncorrelated white noise, right? How
can you filter that?

~~~
itcrowd
Good question. A good but short answer is given on Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter#Matched_filter_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter#Matched_filter_in_digital_communications)).
Any undergraduate textbook on digital signal processing should have details on
this topic.

edit: to add to this, the capacity C ("throughput") of the communications
channel is linear with bandwidth B (in Hertz) but only logarithmic (log_2)
with noise power N. This was derived by Shannon
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem#Statement_of_the_theorem))
and in equation form:

    
    
      C = B*log_2(1+S/N)
    

Example: signal to noise ratio is 1 (S/N = 1). Result:

    
    
      C = B
    

Now we increase the bandwidth of our channel by a factor of 10, keeping the
signal power equal. This will lead to a factor 10 more noise power (S/N =
1/10). Result:

    
    
      C = 10*B*log_2(1 + 1/10) = 1.38*B
    

So we can improve the channel capacity by increasing the bandwidth even in a
noisy channel.

------
tomohawk
Several years ago I interned at a company that dealt with millimeter wave
equipment.

My mentor there was at great pains to train all of us in safety practices. He
mentioned several times that the incidence of eye problems in
telecommunication engineers who dealt with this sort of equipment was much
higher.

We were trained to always cap any emitters to prevent spraying the lab.

~~~
itcrowd
I don't know about incidence rates (source?) but obviously lab equipment is
more dangerous than a consumer product. I don't understand what point you're
trying to make.

------
purplebeing
Stop acting like the only possible way that this technology can affect human
life for worse is if it causes us cancer. Do your research about the bees and
return here to tell me how humanity can possibly survive for the next 100
years if we cannot even solve problems of much lower complexity. I’m sad to
see clever individuals cherry picking one case in the problem set and treating
what is happening like a joke. If you can’t see the bigger picture don’t even
try to assume what you can’t possibly know. Our ridiculous self protection
argument is frequently this one:it doesn’t affect us directly, then everything
is fine. This is why our civilization is destined do collapse. See that I’m
talking about us. The earth goes on.

------
spamlord
[http://archive.is/c7gjH](http://archive.is/c7gjH)

------
draggnar
Are voltage gated calcium channels not within this frequency?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/)

~~~
itcrowd
The short answer is no.

The long answer is that according to Table 1 of your source, there are four
frequencies that affect VGCC:

1) Static fields (i.e. DC, 0 Hz)

2) 50/60 Hz (wall-socket frequency)

3) 700-1100 MHz (cell-phone frequencies)

4) ~1 GHz (authors call it "nanosecond pulse")

These are all well below the "controversial" 5G frequencies, and even below
Wi-Fi frequencies.

------
cwkoss
Has anyone done an experiment where they raise a couple generations of rats
between two 5G base stations constantly transmitting at ~80% capacity?

That seems like it would quite conclusively demonstrate safety.

~~~
learnfromstory
5G is too new for that but there was a decade-long study in which they blasted
mice and rats with ridiculous EM fields similar to 2G/3G technology but at
much higher power, and the results were equivocal.
[https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/04/30/is_5g_w...](https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/04/30/is_5g_wireless_dangerous_no_but_science_may_never_end_the_debate.html)

------
manacit
It's issues like this that make me sympathetic to people who are "anti-
science", or generally lack belief in the status-quo of generally accepted
health safety.

There are a myriad of instances of the government and the scientific community
being wrong - while many of us would like to think that we're qualified to
judge the invalidity of studies like this, most of us are not. When one
credentialed person disagrees with another, would it not be common sense to
err on the side of safety?

Don't get me wrong, the gross disregard for science and education is VERY not
good. I don't think 5G is going to give anyone cancer, vaccines are definitely
good, GMO is good, etc etc. That being said, I think it's a really difficult
world to navigate, especially when the internet can create a level playing
field between two "experts" very easily.

I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say here, other than this sucks -
hearing that people are wasting taxpayer dollars suing Portland to get wifi
out of schools is too bad, and the fact that they have "legitimate" studies to
show why it's a problem is all the worse.

~~~
driverdan
> When one credentialed person disagrees with another, would it not be common
> sense to err on the side of safety?

No. Credentials are not what matters. The public should follow the scientific
consensus and be prepared for the consensus to be refined over time as new
evidence emerges.

There is an overwhelming evidence that non-ionizing radiation at the power
level phones use is not harmful. Individual quacks questioning the consensus
without evidence should not be given equal weight.

------
kappi
this looks like a PR sponsored by wireless industry, take it with a grain of
salt.

~~~
akimball
My takeaway was "5g does not reliably cause cancer". Seems legit. It's not a
magic cancer box, yo.

------
rawoke083600
ads ads ads.. stopped reading

------
aldoushuxley001
What's the point of submitting paywalled content?

Edit: This is an honest question, looking for an actual answer. Is the point
just to comment on the headline?

~~~
bookofjoe
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-
wir...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-
cancer.html?emc=rss&partner=rss)

~~~
aldoushuxley001
also paywalled

------
itcrowd
What I can't understand is why people are so prone to believing the fake facts
that make the rounds on the internet. It is so easy to debunk them, and anyone
who has studied the topic for any amount of time knows they are false. Is
there a name for this phenomenon? How can so many people be so wrongly
informed?

Examples [of fake facts]:

    
    
      5G is dangerous
      Earth is flat 
      Climate change isn't anthropogenic
      Moon landing didn't happen
      etc.

~~~
JudgeWapner
It's easy to criticize certain people, especially conspiracy theorists. Yet
conspiracies have actually happened and products have been recalled due to
massive lies being told that cost countless lives. Thalidomide, celebrex,
Bridgestone tires, asbestos, Ford fuel tanks, cigarettes, 737max, etc. What's
new is peoples' ability to organize and question what is being offered to (or
in this case forced on ) them.

They very well may be wrong, and a lot of their arguments are pseudoscience
bunk, but it's equally ignorant to believe the good word of $GIANT_TELECOM
that everything is safe. Corporations have repeatedly proven that they are
perfectly fine killing us if it boosts their share price a buck or two. Maybe
this is the new normal where industries have to be preemptive in getting
public approval first before deploying new technology.

~~~
itcrowd
Look, I don't disagree with most things you say. However, especially in modern
times with all academic papers being so easily accessible to anyone with an
internet connection, the argument of "believ[ing] the good word of
$GIANT_TELECOM" makes no sense.

Everyone, and especially (science) journalists who report on this, can look at
the peer-reviewed scientific literature and accurately portray what is
communicated through that channel. You don't have to swallow the science as-
is, but if there is criticism, it should be on the methods or techniques; not
the funding, or reasonable conclusions* drawn from the findings.

In other comments in this thread I have shown evidence that 5G is safe and
highlighted flaws in other blogposts (not scientific articles, mind you) that
are pretending otherwise. If people don't agree with that, that's fine but
show the scientific evidence for it.

Yes, there have been scandals in the past. Does that mean every new tech is
the new scandal? No.

*(conclusions not backed by evidence are fair-game)

~~~
JudgeWapner
I'm basically on board with 5G on the health front because any form of
radiation exposure decreases with the square of the radius and, as you have
shown, no ionizing or other adverse effects have been seen with pretty much
any RF source. I have mild suspicion that directional antennas could be used
as a weapon, but I think that's unlikely-to-impossible.

I was merely trying to explain why phenomena like this (suspicion, FUD against
new technology) arise. People are losing their trust in what they are being
told, and there _are_ rational explanations for it.

------
all_blue_chucks
We don't need to treat 5G like it's magical just because it has a new name.
It's just radio. We have been living around radio forever. Unless there is
real evidence that other radio broadcasts cause problems, there's no reason to
study 5G in particular.

~~~
bin0
It's a significantly higher frequency. RF can raise body temperature slightly
at high enough powers (any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this,
though that is much higher than 5G). This is a high-frequency signal with
access points packed densely, which means more RF per person by an order of
magnitude. Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate
doses, but harmful in large ones?

Not trying to fear-monger here, but the bottom line is we don't know. As the
above comment said, I've seen experts on both sides, and really have no idea
where to lean on this one.

~~~
Nicksil
>It's a significantly higher frequency.

Than what?

>RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers

Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors
from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned.

>(any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much
higher than 5G)

Then why even bring it up? You mention at the end of your reply that you're
not trying to fear monger.

>This is a high-frequency signal

But lower than the visible spectrum and ionizing radiation.

>Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but
harmful in large ones?

Mate, you're being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation every second of your
life, in quantities which eclipse anything you mentioned.

>but the bottom line is we don't know

Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time
studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone
interested to learn more.

~~~
danielst
Regarding your comment "Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a
really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for
consumption by anyone interested to learn more."

Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects.

Secondly, the previous, related technologies have, and the majority of
independent studies show harmful health effects from these technologies.

Cf. this article: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-
ph...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-
cancer-inconvenient-truths)

To quote from the article: "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."

~~~
gruez
>Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects.

Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should
we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi?

>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."

non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they
can say their technology is safe!

charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can
perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both
sides can be subject to publication bias.

[1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I
was paying a bribe

~~~
danielst
Thank you gruez for your answer.

>Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects.
Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should
we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi?

Wouldn't it be sensible to do controlled studies of 5G in some form or other
prior to deploying the technology on a large scale and immersing the
population in 5G 24/7? Otherwise, as many have pointed out, we become the
"guinea pigs."

>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."

non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they
can say their technology is safe!

I don't expect they would be directly paying off scientists. This article is
worth reading:

[https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-
us-t...](https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t..).

From the article: “Everyone knows that if your research results show that
radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up.” —Dariusz Leszczynski,
adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki

charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can
perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both
sides can be subject to publication bias.

This is an interesting point I had not thought of, thank you for bringing it
up. It would be interesting to know if the independently-funded studies were
less well-funded than the industry-funded studies.

[1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I
was paying a bribe

I don't expect there has been paying of bribes. The 28% in spite of the
industry pressure may reflect a degree of resilience of science itself, and/or
some level of integrity of the scientists despite the pressure.

~~~
itcrowd
So, on the one hand we need to "prove safety" of $NEW_TECH before deployment
and on the other hand the $NEW_TECH industry is not allowed to fund the
investigation (because suspicious!!)?

How does anything new get invented in that world?

Also, your linked article is extremely long but ends with this sentence that
is just ... well I don't know... ridiculous:

"No scientist can say with certainty how many wireless-technology users are
likely to contract cancer, but that is precisely the point: We simply don’t
know."

~~~
sooheon
> How does anything new get invented in that world?

I agree with you that the linked article reeks of FUD, but I'd urge you to
consider that less caution and oversight wrt to new inventions is not free.
Every time we pull a new ball out of the "urn" of possible inventions we're
gambling that the pros will outweigh the cons. I can't agree with being too
pro-industry and derisive of caution (see:
[https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf)).

~~~
itcrowd
I agree with that!

Thanks for the linked dissertation. I will take some time to read it soon.

------
EGreg
The real problem with 5G is that the access points will be mounted on every
city block! There will be a lot more power to the emissions.

People living close to cellphone towers do experience effects. Some people are
so sensitive they have to all together move to towns with close to zero EM
waves.

You can feel sunlight on your skin btw.

And then there are the insects and other animals...

~~~
driverdan
> People living close to cellphone towers do experience effects. Some people
> are so sensitive they have to all together move to towns with close to zero
> EM waves.

No they don't. Just because they believe something doesn't mean it's true. EM
sensitivity does not exist, or at least every test done so far has shown no
evidence of it existing. The effect is psychosomatic.

~~~
EGreg
What about insects and other animals?

Can you show that the argument “Human skin blocks HF radiowaves” translates
over to the birds bees and other animals?

Seems we already have had colony collapse disorder and other things possibly
because of cellphone signals. Even 3G:

[http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/bee.decline.mobil...](http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/bee.decline.mobile.phones/index.html)

