How is 5G going to give you cancer? The part of the spectrum it uses isn't ionizing, not even close (it's below not just visible light, but infrared light), and indeed specifically has issues with...
I can see how it could be positive for homes without wired internet, but I don't think it's worth risking getting cancer for.
How is 5G going to give you cancer? The part of the spectrum it uses isn't ionizing, not even close (it's below not just visible light, but infrared light), and indeed specifically has issues with signals being blocked by just about anything.
Whether spectrum is ionising or not is not the be all and end all of the discussion around harmful physiological effects. For example, blue light is non-ionising, yet is associated with long term...
Whether spectrum is ionising or not is not the be all and end all of the discussion around harmful physiological effects. For example, blue light is non-ionising, yet is associated with long term macular degeneration. Same with standing microwaves, which will happily fry your skin.
We don't actually know much about the long term effects of high output mmWave technology on human physiology. That's not to say it will give you cancer. We just don't know.
I was responding to the cancer claim, there is no mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to damage DNA. But I'm going to just come out and say that any claims of health risks from 5G radios are...
I was responding to the cancer claim, there is no mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to damage DNA. But I'm going to just come out and say that any claims of health risks from 5G radios are bullshit. While this is a new standard, it's not like we're diving headlong into some new unknown technology, we've been using radio for over a hundred years, and we know how it affects human physiology. Moreover, while they haven't been in wide use, we have been using these same frequencies for decades, and the only way for anything in that slice of the spectrum to damage you is through direct energy transfer, i.e. heating you up, which isn't relevant at the broadcast power of cell networks. This is just the old 'cellphones cause cancer' myth coming round again.
That's hardly scientific at all as it's a blanket statement. From a purely scientific point of view; I have not seen a single published paper either demonstrably and assuredly indicating the...
But I'm going to just come out and say that any claims of health risks from 5G radios are bullshit
That's hardly scientific at all as it's a blanket statement. From a purely scientific point of view; I have not seen a single published paper either demonstrably and assuredly indicating the technology is dangerous nor safe.
we've been using radio for over a hundred years, and we know how it affects human physiology
Radio is an extremely wide band of light frequencies. Like I said in my above comment, the physiological effects of blue light weren't known to cause macular effects until the last few decades. And no, we've never used mmWave technology at this level of proposed insolation or ubiquity before.
This comment was significantly edited to remove unnecessary personal commentary.
Says the person making entirely unsubstantiated claims about 5G causing cancer? see below Also, it was entirely you that shifted the goalpost, not spectrvl. They were commenting very specifically...
blanket statements isn't what Tildes is for.
Says the person making entirely unsubstantiated claims about 5G causing cancer?see below Also, it was entirely you that shifted the goalpost, not spectrvl. They were commenting very specifically on yourKeegan's cancer claim, and it was you that then went on a tangent about other "harmful physiological effects" like "macular degeneration" and "[frying] your skin".
And for the record, calling someone "purposely naive" and being guilty of "complete hubris" for simply disagreeing with you and questioning your claims is really what's inappropriate for Tildes, IMO. So how about toning your rhetoric down several notches and cutting out the ad hominems from now on?
Well... shit... I assumed the first comment in the chain was emdash's too and didn't realize it was Keegan. I should have looked at the usernames more closely. I apologize for that, @emdash.
Well... shit... I assumed the first comment in the chain was emdash's too and didn't realize it was Keegan. I should have looked at the usernames more closely. I apologize for that, @emdash.
I mean, you're the one who used my cancer comment as a springboard to speculate about possible health risks of radio. I wasn't the one moving the goalposts there. As for the rest of your comment,...
I mean, you're the one who used my cancer comment as a springboard to speculate about possible health risks of radio. I wasn't the one moving the goalposts there.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm sorry, but unless you can provide any evidence that radio waves of any frequency are even capable of doing anything but heat damage, it just reads as baseless speculation. Which isn't what Tildes is for.
In my defence, I'm just asserting a position of "we don't know" because as far as I can tell, there haven't been more than 2-3 studies that actually have investigated the effects of 5G-related...
In my defence, I'm just asserting a position of "we don't know" because as far as I can tell, there haven't been more than 2-3 studies that actually have investigated the effects of 5G-related bands on human physiology. I'm not claiming they do have any effects on the body, just reciting what scientific literature I can find that says there isn't any consensus, and probably don't, but according to current scientific research, we can't say for certain.
Why do you say that? Saying the wavelength of the part of spectrum we're talking about is functionally equivalent to saying the frequency. That is, mm waves would correspond to 300ghz. Is that not...
Why do you say that? Saying the wavelength of the part of spectrum we're talking about is functionally equivalent to saying the frequency. That is, mm waves would correspond to 300ghz.
Is that not the part of the spectrum we're talking about?
I am surprised you would make a statement like this after we have seen time and time again how this is just a shortsighted view on things. People 20 years ago thought you'd never need more than...
The total possible bandwidth that can be had will never be reached
I am surprised you would make a statement like this after we have seen time and time again how this is just a shortsighted view on things. People 20 years ago thought you'd never need more than dialup, even 10 years ago people said you'd only need 2 cores for games.
In this case it's a function of the laws of physics, not technology. mmwaves do not propagate well at all. The only way you'll get even close to the theoretical maximum bandwidth of the spectrum...
In this case it's a function of the laws of physics, not technology. mmwaves do not propagate well at all. The only way you'll get even close to the theoretical maximum bandwidth of the spectrum would be to have a perfect line of sight in a vacuum to the transceiver. In the single place that deploying this technology could possible be viable (cities) that is a pretty tall order. It would certainly be possible to get faster speeds, but there's a reason that these frequencies haven't been used for cell communication before. At the top end, people's bodies, windows, rain, even light mist would completely block the signal.
Agreed. 5G has a whole host of downsides that range from reducing our ability to accurately forecast weather, more inefficient devices, a higher carbon footprint due to an increased amount of...
Agreed. 5G has a whole host of downsides that range from reducing our ability to accurately forecast weather, more inefficient devices, a higher carbon footprint due to an increased amount of infrastructure, and unknown physiological effects.
I wouldn't call it a money grab, it's just the next step in the technological advancements. Self driving cars for example might rely on that network. I don't see how it's a money grab? Unless you...
I wouldn't call it a money grab, it's just the next step in the technological advancements. Self driving cars for example might rely on that network. I don't see how it's a money grab? Unless you solely mean the phones, in which case I think at the moment there's barely any 5g connectivity, but in a couple of years it might be handy.
it could become a money grab if people market it as a gimmick and start attaching it to things and phones that really don't need it, but in general yeah, i don't see how it's a money grab...
I wouldn't call it a money grab, it's just the next step in the technological advancements. Self driving cars for example might rely on that network. I don't see how it's a money grab? Unless you solely mean the phones, in which case I think at the moment there's barely any 5g connectivity, but in a couple of years it might be handy.
it could become a money grab if people market it as a gimmick and start attaching it to things and phones that really don't need it, but in general yeah, i don't see how it's a money grab currently. someone's gotta be the person to pull the trigger and incorporate it into something for people to actually start making it consumer-viable, and incorporating it into smartphones is the obvious option given the circumstances.
Have there been any research findings on that yet? A couple of months ago I went through quite a bit of effort to try and find out about the state of research on this topic, and found shockingly...
there is much controversy over the safety of 5G.
Have there been any research findings on that yet? A couple of months ago I went through quite a bit of effort to try and find out about the state of research on this topic, and found shockingly little of substance - but all the more shilling one way or the other ("Conspiracy-theorists and antivaxxers are fear-mongering about 5G although it's perfectly safe!" vs. "5G is proven to cause cancer but the corporations want to silence this!").
I mean, the overall protocol itself pretty fresh out of development, yes? It uses an entirely different spectrum of RF, which is going to necessitate different radios than what we currently have...
I mean, the overall protocol itself pretty fresh out of development, yes? It uses an entirely different spectrum of RF, which is going to necessitate different radios than what we currently have in smart phones. The phone side of it is a gambit at the moment, at least as far as I can tell. It's not a good plan to rush things like this, especially because the higher frequencies have shorter range, requiring more infrastructure. If you live in a rural area, you probably shouldn't even consider a 5G phone because I doubt you'd get your money's worth. In my opinion, early adoption is overrated, especially for consumers.
I highly doubt 5G is actually here. Last I heard, Ericsson was planning to put up a test bed between San Francisco and San Jose, which doesn't really sound like something a major player would be doing if the technology was industry-ready. I guess there's been so much stagnation with smart phones in the last couple years, everyone wants to jump on this train.
Another top-level comment mentioned bandwidth in the sense that we don't really need much more. I would agree with that; my problem is usually just with getting a good signal. Once I have it, throughput is hardly ever an issue, though latency may not be as great. Beyond that, many data plans in the US set a data limit such that using 5G at max capacity would consume that limit too fast for it to be worth it. For phones, I think we're a bit past the point of diminishing returns (for bandwidth).
The main places I see 5G as reasonable are moderately short-range applications with high-data throughput and low latency requirements. Autonomous cars and vehicle-to-vehicle (and vehicle-to-infrastructure) networks are probably the best example of this, as is wireless VR. Beyond those, I'm not sure how many applications there are for 5G, but recent history suggests we'll find some interesting uses for it.
How is 5G going to give you cancer? The part of the spectrum it uses isn't ionizing, not even close (it's below not just visible light, but infrared light), and indeed specifically has issues with signals being blocked by just about anything.
Not the OP, but it's the "blocked (absorbed) by just about anything (including human skin)" that would be the topic in question.
Whether spectrum is ionising or not is not the be all and end all of the discussion around harmful physiological effects. For example, blue light is non-ionising, yet is associated with long term macular degeneration. Same with standing microwaves, which will happily fry your skin.
We don't actually know much about the long term effects of high output mmWave technology on human physiology. That's not to say it will give you cancer. We just don't know.
I was responding to the cancer claim, there is no mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to damage DNA. But I'm going to just come out and say that any claims of health risks from 5G radios are bullshit. While this is a new standard, it's not like we're diving headlong into some new unknown technology, we've been using radio for over a hundred years, and we know how it affects human physiology. Moreover, while they haven't been in wide use, we have been using these same frequencies for decades, and the only way for anything in that slice of the spectrum to damage you is through direct energy transfer, i.e. heating you up, which isn't relevant at the broadcast power of cell networks. This is just the old 'cellphones cause cancer' myth coming round again.
That's hardly scientific at all as it's a blanket statement. From a purely scientific point of view; I have not seen a single published paper either demonstrably and assuredly indicating the technology is dangerous nor safe.
Radio is an extremely wide band of light frequencies. Like I said in my above comment, the physiological effects of blue light weren't known to cause macular effects until the last few decades. And no, we've never used mmWave technology at this level of proposed insolation or ubiquity before.
This comment was significantly edited to remove unnecessary personal commentary.
Says the person making entirely unsubstantiated claims about 5G causing cancer?see below Also, it was entirely you that shifted the goalpost, not spectrvl. They were commenting very specifically onyourKeegan's cancer claim, and it was you that then went on a tangent about other "harmful physiological effects" like "macular degeneration" and "[frying] your skin".And for the record, calling someone "purposely naive" and being guilty of "complete hubris" for simply disagreeing with you and questioning your claims is really what's inappropriate for Tildes, IMO. So how about toning your rhetoric down several notches and cutting out the ad hominems from now on?
I would like to know where I implied this.
You didn't, @Keegan did. @cfabbro just didn't check and assumed since you involved yourself, it must have been you.
Well... shit... I assumed the first comment in the chain was emdash's too and didn't realize it was Keegan. I should have looked at the usernames more closely. I apologize for that, @emdash.
I mean, you're the one who used my cancer comment as a springboard to speculate about possible health risks of radio. I wasn't the one moving the goalposts there.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm sorry, but unless you can provide any evidence that radio waves of any frequency are even capable of doing anything but heat damage, it just reads as baseless speculation. Which isn't what Tildes is for.
In my defence, I'm just asserting a position of "we don't know" because as far as I can tell, there haven't been more than 2-3 studies that actually have investigated the effects of 5G-related bands on human physiology. I'm not claiming they do have any effects on the body, just reciting what scientific literature I can find that says there isn't any consensus, and probably don't, but according to current scientific research, we can't say for certain.
Why do you say that? Saying the wavelength of the part of spectrum we're talking about is functionally equivalent to saying the frequency. That is, mm waves would correspond to 300ghz.
Is that not the part of the spectrum we're talking about?
I am surprised you would make a statement like this after we have seen time and time again how this is just a shortsighted view on things. People 20 years ago thought you'd never need more than dialup, even 10 years ago people said you'd only need 2 cores for games.
In this case it's a function of the laws of physics, not technology. mmwaves do not propagate well at all. The only way you'll get even close to the theoretical maximum bandwidth of the spectrum would be to have a perfect line of sight in a vacuum to the transceiver. In the single place that deploying this technology could possible be viable (cities) that is a pretty tall order. It would certainly be possible to get faster speeds, but there's a reason that these frequencies haven't been used for cell communication before. At the top end, people's bodies, windows, rain, even light mist would completely block the signal.
Agreed. 5G has a whole host of downsides that range from reducing our ability to accurately forecast weather, more inefficient devices, a higher carbon footprint due to an increased amount of infrastructure, and unknown physiological effects.
It's a money grab.
I wouldn't call it a money grab, it's just the next step in the technological advancements. Self driving cars for example might rely on that network. I don't see how it's a money grab? Unless you solely mean the phones, in which case I think at the moment there's barely any 5g connectivity, but in a couple of years it might be handy.
it could become a money grab if people market it as a gimmick and start attaching it to things and phones that really don't need it, but in general yeah, i don't see how it's a money grab currently. someone's gotta be the person to pull the trigger and incorporate it into something for people to actually start making it consumer-viable, and incorporating it into smartphones is the obvious option given the circumstances.
Have there been any research findings on that yet? A couple of months ago I went through quite a bit of effort to try and find out about the state of research on this topic, and found shockingly little of substance - but all the more shilling one way or the other ("Conspiracy-theorists and antivaxxers are fear-mongering about 5G although it's perfectly safe!" vs. "5G is proven to cause cancer but the corporations want to silence this!").
I mean, the overall protocol itself pretty fresh out of development, yes? It uses an entirely different spectrum of RF, which is going to necessitate different radios than what we currently have in smart phones. The phone side of it is a gambit at the moment, at least as far as I can tell. It's not a good plan to rush things like this, especially because the higher frequencies have shorter range, requiring more infrastructure. If you live in a rural area, you probably shouldn't even consider a 5G phone because I doubt you'd get your money's worth. In my opinion, early adoption is overrated, especially for consumers.
I highly doubt 5G is actually here. Last I heard, Ericsson was planning to put up a test bed between San Francisco and San Jose, which doesn't really sound like something a major player would be doing if the technology was industry-ready. I guess there's been so much stagnation with smart phones in the last couple years, everyone wants to jump on this train.
Another top-level comment mentioned bandwidth in the sense that we don't really need much more. I would agree with that; my problem is usually just with getting a good signal. Once I have it, throughput is hardly ever an issue, though latency may not be as great. Beyond that, many data plans in the US set a data limit such that using 5G at max capacity would consume that limit too fast for it to be worth it. For phones, I think we're a bit past the point of diminishing returns (for bandwidth).
The main places I see 5G as reasonable are moderately short-range applications with high-data throughput and low latency requirements. Autonomous cars and vehicle-to-vehicle (and vehicle-to-infrastructure) networks are probably the best example of this, as is wireless VR. Beyond those, I'm not sure how many applications there are for 5G, but recent history suggests we'll find some interesting uses for it.