
5G is perfectly fine - primMK
https://outsideplatoscave.substack.com/p/outside-platos-cave-4?r=5xuid&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=hackernews
======
zw123456
This is actually a pretty good explanation of why mm-wave is safe. An inside
joke in the industry is that mm-wave can't propagate it's way out of a wet
paper bag. Which is quite literally true. One might wonder then, what is the
attraction of using a band that has such limited propagation properties ? The
answer is that wireless technology is reaching the Shannon limit, that is to
say 4G/LTE is approaching the physical limit of how much information can be
packed into a Mhz of spectrum. The solution is to use beam forming. If you can
dedicate the entire spectrum to a single user by forming a highly directional
beam between the user and the tower then you can dramatically increase the
capacity (hence throughput). But to do that you would need an enormous
antenna. The laws of physics say that the beam width is inversely proportional
to the size of the antenna for a given wavelength. If one were to try to
create a 1 degree beam width using sub 6Ghz you would need a 12ft diameter (or
square) antenna. Obviously that is not practical. But if you use a smaller
wavelength then you can focus a tiny beam to a single user with a 1ft antenna.
The trade off is short wavelength such as mm-wave have very little penetrating
ability. So you have to place a lot of base stations all over the place.
Expensive yes, but you get whopping through puts. But.. the signal could not
penetrate it's way out of a wet paper bag, or through walls, or skin, or
anything just about.

~~~
0xDEEPFAC
Ignoring the potential health concerns. 5G antennas need to be placed on
_every single city block_ low and close to people to be effective - so it is
hopeless for a majority of the US not directly in a city unless we litter the
entire suburbs and small towns in addition to our cities with Huawai
equipment.

And again, what is all of this for? Faster downloads of instagram photos? I
don't get it. How about starting with infrastructure projects that matter like
fiber - some people in the US only have DSL as an option...

Following the Chinese WHO debacle and how much faith I have in the phone
industry I, personally, don't believe the hype and the studies they produce
even if they deem it "safe."

~~~
zw123456
Actually, because of the low propagation properties, mm-wave 5G network is
mostly fiber. The signal can only travel a few hundred feet, the rest is
fiber. Why ? The most expensive part of fiber is the last few hundred feet.
Also, the antennas being so small, don't necessarily have to be on a large
pole. Also they use phased array antennas that electronically steer the signal
so they can be mounted on light poles that might sway a little but it can be
compensated for. BTW, Huawei equipment is not being used by any of the major
carriers in the US (or any that I am aware of). The mm-wave signal is safer
than wifi. Remember, you microwave oven using 2.4Ghz to cook your food, same
band as wifi.

~~~
Raphael_Amiard
So, what you're saying is that 5g is basically an improved wifi? (Shortish
range so uses another transport, very good throughput)

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Could someone explain why the sibling comment is flagged and dead? I don't
have any background in this area, so it's not obvious to me what's wrong with
the comment.

~~~
akvadrako
It looks like just a list of papers, almost definitely either irrelevant or
bad science. This kind of thing is very common and it’s not worth the time to
investigate it.

If someone wants to show that 5g is dangerous they need to first demonstrate
they understand why those claims aren’t taken seriously.

------
cuspy
The 5G scare is to some extent part of an exploitative, manipulative health-
concern industry. However, people are generally right to be afraid of the
potential health effects of new technologies and substances that are released
into their environments.

It is extremely unethical and dangerous in my opinion to attempt to shame and
censor people or pathologize their "paranoia". In most cases, despite being
cynically exploited, what we're talking about is a healthy and sensible self-
protective instinct. I feel safer in my society when people are free to
discuss these fears without shame

When talking to a skeptic, if you are certain that a particular fear is
illegitimate, be specific as to why and don't use shame to seek compliance. In
many cases you'll probably find that you yourself lack the ability to clearly
explain why you think their skepticism is unfounded. We all know from
countless examples, even in recent history, that there are many people and
organizations willing to physically harm the public's health in various ways
for profit.

What I wish we would all be concerned with is not the health effects, but
instead the potential for dramatically increased surveillance and control that
comes with access to so much more bandwidth. Carelessly normalizing and
naturalizing progress for progress's sake undermines the credibility of
science and technology as tools for the greater good. More and more people are
turning against us.

Second, it's also my opinion we should be concerned that certain crucial
decisions about our urban environments are exempt from even the pretense of
local democratic control. I for one do not want to live in a city where
critical infrastructure is governed by a large top-down international private
corporate consensus, but it seems that's where we are headed.

------
wazoox
Why 5G is dangerous : because mm-wave can't get out of a paper bag, we'll need
a tremendous number of antennas everywhere, consuming a tremendous amount of
resources and burning a tremendous amount of energy. For what benefit exactly?
I don't want 5G. I'm very certain we have really urgent problems of climate,
pollution, biodiversity, resources to tackle, and we certainly don't need any
new planned-obsolescence systems. No to 5G. And of course, no to 8K TV.

~~~
falcor84
I for one am excited about the opportunities for team meetings over AR, which
to do right would require these higher bandwidths

~~~
mcguire
I would prefer to be able to listen to podcasts while driving in the vast,
empty wastelands outside urban areas.

~~~
stinos
This sort of has been solved for 50 (wild guess) years with portable music
players. Sure it is not exactly the same, and sure there's the extra recording
step, but once that is done (which for downloadable stuff nowadays takes a
fraction of the playback time) you have something which is better in some ways
because it's offline. Don't get me wrong here: I'm not acvocating to go back,
but in some ways it's strange to see new technology being used so widely yet
people suffering to get things done which were actually better with older
technology. Battery life is another one. The 2 of them combined in an example:
I have a rather old portable player which takes micro SD cards. Even without
swapping that's a huge amount of music. 2 AA batteries and the thing lasts for
hundreds of hours. So purely for playing audio that solution really owns
anything newer. Then again, it's of course also the only thing it does.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's also a problem that's solved by podcast apps, and in an even better way
because they self-update your content.

Definitely a shame that they make so many phones without microSD slots,
though.

~~~
Yetanfou
> Definitely a shame that they make so many phones without microSD slots,
> though.

Just don't buy those phones and that problem is solved.

~~~
Dylan16807
Which is fine if that's your only requirement. I also want the ability to root
my phone (and update it once the manufacturer support runs out in two years),
and since I use T-mobile I want full support for their network (including
600MHz 5G). All achievable individually, but no phone supports all three.

------
11235813213455
There's also the fact that this will trigger a lot of new smartphone sales,
compatible with 5G. This represent a future massive amount of pollution, for
something not really necessary

~~~
oh_sigh
This isn't 5Gs fault - this is an argument against anything new and better
than the the previous version. The real problem is that consumers are not
charged the true cost of cleanup for their phones.

~~~
Dylan16807
What would you estimate that is? Is it the kind of thing that could be paid
for with an extra $50 a phone? Ideally along with some human rights
enforcement.

------
hootbootscoot
Nice, but I would have started in with explaining the electromagnetic
spectrum, what photons are, what frequency is, where the visible light
spectrum starts, how it's bounded by infrared at the bottom and uv above it,
what "ionizing" radiation is, where on the frequency band it starts, what else
starts around that band (photosynthesis) as a result of photon quanta finally
being able to alter electron valences being at specific quanta, why etc, how
ionizing radiation damages molecules, radiosynthesis and melanin-containing-
fungi that grow on reactor walls, etc.

basically, reassuring those prone towards conspiracy cult beliefs due to
insufficient science education and a general bent towards such theories will
tend to backfire. just saying "it's ok" won't work.

break it down and immunize them to future silly beliefs due to understanding
the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.

once they understand that everything below visible light just makes molecules
wiggle, spin, hop, MOVE around, and doesn't structurally alter them then when
some random youtuber says "absorbtion band oxygen water bla bla" you can
understand that it's a low-efficiency microwave oven at best, lol

the other thing is: a tendency for those without a basic science education to
presume that all of humanity is equally ignorant of this stuff. one can show
them photos of how we learned this stuff the hard way, ranging from Mdm Curie
to the hapless armed services assistants to various Manhattan project tests
etc. not to mention the denizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. We learned
about the high absorption band around 60ghz back in submarine communications
101 as that range won't work for long range comm...

~~~
Gnarl
Ionizing RF not required for DNA damage. Think biology, not oldschool physics
& see here:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279863242_Oxidative_mechanisms_of_biological_activity_of_low-
intensity_radiofrequency_radiation)

TLDR; "Analysis of the currently available peer-reviewed scientific literature
reveals molecular effects induced by low-intensity RFR in living cells; this
includes significant activation of key pathways generating reactive oxygen
species (ROS), activation of peroxidation, oxidative _damage of DNA_ and
changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes. It indicates that among 100
currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of
low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects
in biological systems."

------
yumraj
> The bottom line is, short of swallowing or embedding a 5G mmWave transmitter
> into your body and letting it run for a long time, you’re safe.

But isn't the cellphone, which will have a 5G transmitter, be effectively next
to your body all the time? In all of these discussions why do we always ignore
the 5G mobile devices?

And, what about when you're outside, standing below a 5G small cell, as you're
taking a walk or kids are playing in the neighborhood, is it safe then? There
is no wall between you and the antenna, just a few meters of air.

~~~
yongjik
The world is already soaked every day with a vastly more lethal form of
radiation, called sunlight. Ever took a nap in the beach without sunscreen?
Compared to that, 5G is a non-issue.

If your kid wants to stand right below an 5G transmitter for hours, for some
reason, make sure that they use sunscreen, because otherwise they may get
uncomfortable radiation burns from the sun.

~~~
Gnarl
Methinks you need to see this:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914/](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914/)

Biologically, there's big difference between man-made and natural EMR.

------
Pick-A-Hill2019
Firstly, Congrats on making it to the front page of HN, I guess you finally
managed to work out the algorithms
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23417975](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23417975)).
In closing all I would add is this
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439437](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439437)

------
jrockway
Someone posted: "why do we need this?" By the time I was done writing my
reply, they deleted their comment and HN wouldn't let me reply. But here is my
reply:

The demand comes from the fact that the vast majority of the world uses a cell
phone as their primary computer. Paying for the Internet twice is a luxury
they cannot afford. So it makes sense that the phone companies want to serve
them. There is a fixed amount of spectrum available at lower frequencies that
can travel longer distances, and we've used all that. So now the idea is to
exploit higher frequencies where more bandwidth is available, but the trade-
off is that the signals don't travel as far (attenuation by building surfaces,
and even the air itself). So access points have to be closer together.

The reality is that WiFi has never worked very well. Bandwidth is allocated
poorly, mostly by accident. (Claiming there are 11 channels at 2.4GHz was a
big lie that cost us dearly. Bad defaults at 5GHz led people to believe it was
attenuated by walls, which it really isn't -- APs just chose channels that
they were only allowed to use at lower power than the 2.4GHz channels.) Any
time you've seen WiFi working well involves careful site surveys and
complicated software that coordinates access over a backhaul (usually wired
for the ones that work, but dual radio APs that use wireless backhaul appear
to work in the lab -- nobody that I know of is selling them though). 5G is
basically that, but owned by the incumbent carriers instead of individuals.
They can coordinate access and steer devices to the right AP, which is the #1
thing that makes short-haul radio links reliable. I agree that the
circumstances suck, but funding hardware R&D has to be paid for by someone. If
you want to start a company to make a peer-to-peer radio network, I say go for
it. People are interested. The hardware exists. But I think you'll find that
to make money, you're going to have to charge people for access, and probably
provide some sort of fallback to 4G/3G for people that are out of your service
area. Guess who can provide that? The incumbents. So that's why they're doing
it.

It's not all bad, though. Someone has to provide backhaul for the APs, and
they're often fiber. So fiber is not going away, and the technology will not
stop being developed. It is likely that the fiber ISP that sells service to
the cell phone companies will also be happy to sell it to you. It really comes
down to how easy it is to lay the fiber to your location. In some cities, they
built subways under every street for power and Internet (Manhattan has a huge
network). In environments like that, it's easy for anyone to sell you a
connection. I worked for an ISP that did exactly that, and it was great. The
biggest barrier we had was buildings wanting to charge the ISP to provide
service to the building. That isn't profitable for the ISP, so they simply say
they can't serve you.

My TL;DR is: encourage your municipality to make it easy to provide fiber to
your location, and someone will. You can buy the necessary equipment to start
a fiber ISP with a credit card. I say go for it.

~~~
Gnarl
"You can buy the necessary equipment to start a fiber ISP with a credit card"

That sounds really interesting. Care to list stuff needed to bootstrap a fiber
ISP?

~~~
jrockway
Get an OLT: [https://www.ui.com/ufiber/ufiber-
olt/](https://www.ui.com/ufiber/ufiber-olt/)

And some ONTs: [https://www.ui.com/ufiber/ufiber-
nano-g/](https://www.ui.com/ufiber/ufiber-nano-g/)

(I have not used these, but the price is right.)

Obviously the hard part is stringing a fiber between your datacenter and the
customer.

------
joyj2nd
So you are telling us that Corona is not caused by 5G?

