
New Swiss studies claim 5G increases body temperature of insects - rms_returns
https://www.androidpit.com/5g-overheats-insect-antennas
======
endorphone
Basically blog spam that cites an activist group that claims to have
"published studies" that were published a year ago, having nothing to do with
them.

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.

~~~
devoply
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://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-
radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats)

[https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/416515-theres-a-
clear...](https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/416515-theres-a-clear-cell-
phone-cancer-link-but-fda-is-downplaying-it)

~~~
endorphone
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.

------
jazzyjackson
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.

~~~
devoply
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-...](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-
radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats)

~~~
saagarjha
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.

~~~
devoply
> 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.

~~~
mewse
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.

------
sehugg
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](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3)

------
brunoTbear
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?

~~~
fnord77
[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)

~~~
KirinDave
So you're suggesting RT is behind a Swiss study?

~~~
tzs
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.

~~~
KirinDave
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.

------
ducttape12
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)

~~~
mac01021
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.

~~~
sneak
By that logic, we shouldn’t build cities or buildings. I am pretty sure most
people do not agree with this position.

~~~
mac01021
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.

------
cadence-
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.

~~~
freyr
> _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.

~~~
grecy
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.

~~~
Google234
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...](https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)

~~~
grecy
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.

~~~
Google234
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](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.

------
ycombonator
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.

------
zamazingo
I cannot find a link to the study or studies mentioned.

------
connorcodes
I'm not surprised. Millimeter wave can do that among other things.

------
_bxg1
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?

------
nullbyte
Inaccurate article.

------
davesque
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.

~~~
jonhendry18
I really doubt that much effort has been spent on determining the effect of
constant, pervasive mm-wave signals on insects.

