Switzerland halts rollout of 5G over health concerns - Update: Swiss gov't denies the report

[TechyBen]

18 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

There's no scientific basis for how 5G towers can be dangerous to humans*.

 

*: There is the risk of microwave radiation heating body tissue to the point of danger and/or death - as is the risk with literally every kind of radio transmitter ever invented, including AM/FM/2G/3G/4G/WIFI, etc. The main concern is that if you stand right beside a commercial transmitter (Eg: the thing on top of the cell tower), the power involved could harm or kill you. That hasn't changed with 5G.

 

But it's not cancer that'll kill you - since non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer. What kills you is that by standing beside a commercial radio transmitter, you're literally inside a Microwave oven.

 

But, since there are already safety procedures in place for that kind of thing (and have been for decades), no one is standing beside these things.

 

So yeah - mmWave 5G might be new (with the higher frequencies), but even in that case, there's no scientific basis for how mmWave might be more dangerous to us than current frequencies (which is to say, not dangerous at all for the end user).

 

 

True. But heating can help them grow. But if you're that worried, you'll be living near the north pole by that point.

[Sauron]

19 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Since exposure reduces with distance squared being closer causes more exposure than a reduction in power.

It's not about how close you are to the cell, it's about how much power your phone needs to reach it. Cells will always be too far from you to be dangerous.

8 hours ago, greenmax said:

But with no back doors to hack

...who do you think makes 4G cells?

[kokakolia]

On 2/19/2020 at 9:49 PM, RonnieOP said:

There was protestors marching downtown a couple months ago over 5G.

 

I havent looked into it very much but what little i have doesnt cause me to worry but again i havent looked too much in to it. But these idiots marching in the street caused a huge traffic jam so im inclined to vote for anything they are against.

You know your country is doing really, really, really well for itself when the only protest is about 5G. Here's a list of more important things to protest:

 

- Climate change

- Retirements

- Tax breaks for the ultra rich

- War

- Stagnant salaries

- Price hikes for essential products like food or gasoline

- Cost of higher Education

- Healthcare

- Cost of housing

- Social justice

- War on drugs

- Economic Inequality

 

... and the list goes on!

 

 

 

 

[Kilrah]

39 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It's not about how close you are to the cell, it's about how much power your phone needs to reach it. Cells will always be too far from you to be dangerous.

But here what people always complain about is base stations being installed close to their homes. In a city you can have a BS installed on the top of the building next to you, 20 meters away from where you live.

Has caused delays in deployment over the years as many new base station installs get objections filed against them.

[Sauron]

Just now, Kilrah said:

But here what people always complain about is base stations being installed close to their homes. In a city you can have a BS installed on the top of the building next to you, 20 meters away from where you live.

20m is way too far for it to be dangerous - as you said, the effective power is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Even being a meter or two away would make it completely harmless.

[RonnieOP]

9 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

You know your country is doing really, really, really well for itself when the only protest is about 5G. Here's a list of more important things to protest:

 

- Climate change

- Retirements

- Tax breaks for the ultra rich

- War

- Stagnant salaries

- Price hikes for essential products like food or gasoline

- Cost of higher Education

- Healthcare

- Cost of housing

- Social justice

- War on drugs

- Economic Inequality

 

... and the list goes on!

 

 

 

 

I live in a liberal hell hole. Dont worry we have protests for all that crap too.

 

But none of that has anything to do with this topic so i only brought up the protest they had for 5g.

[Thorium19]

There's a flyer on a street light near mine that is a stereotypical tin foil hat "5G is bad" flyer. Everything it outlines on it has been proven false already, I just wish I could find the nutter who stuck it up and see whether they live in a faraday cage and have no electronics in their home.

[Kilrah]

And I know a family who have gone through the whole shebang of signing petitions, initiatives, press articles and other political recourse against it...

 

It's at the point of "what he have is good enough, don't need anything more, so even the tiniest improbable risk makes it not worth it". 

[dalekphalm]

On 2/21/2020 at 8:31 AM, TechyBen said:

True. But heating can help them grow. But if you're that worried, you'll be living near the north pole by that point.

Has that actually been scientifically confirmed, though?

 

Either way, if you're close enough to a radio transmitter of any kind that it's enough to heat your tissue to dangerous levels, you're literally standing right beside it.

[divito]

All the people espousing that there is no direct causal link are being a bit silly. The same things were said with lead paint, asbestos, smoking, and countless other things before studies became more stringent, thorough and unbiased.

The amount of biological and environmental variability from conception to death makes almost any study unverifiable. 

[dalekphalm]

22 minutes ago, divito said:

All the people espousing that there is no direct causal link are being a bit silly. The same things were said with lead paint, asbestos, smoking, and countless other things before studies became more stringent, thorough and unbiased.

The amount of biological and environmental variability from conception to death makes almost any study unverifiable. 

Sure, but with lead paint, asbestos, smoking, and countless other things, there is a clear and well understood biological path for those things to affect us.

 

There is no scientific basis for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer. There's also no scientific basis for radio antennas (including 5G) to be harmful at all outside of the well understood microwave heating mechanisms that affect literally all radio at close distance and high power.

 

So yeah if you're standing beside a coastal defense RADAR tower, you'll be cooked alive and probably die. If you're sitting on top of a 4G transmitter on a cell tower, again - you'll be cooked alive and might die. But due to the inverse square law, being even a few feet away basically takes the danger and exponentially reduces it.

[divito]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, but with lead paint, asbestos, smoking, and countless other things, there is a clear and well understood biological path for those things to affect us.

It was only understood afterwards, else none of them would have been in existence and so prevalent during their time before a scientific basis was established.
 

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

There is no scientific basis for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer. There's also no scientific basis for radio antennas (including 5G) to be harmful at all outside of the well understood microwave heating mechanisms that affect literally all radio at close distance and high power.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
 

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But due to the inverse square law, being even a few feet away basically takes the danger and exponentially reduces it.

Yes, it reduces it, but we cannot say it does nothing at all. The amount of variables that have to be controlled to produce meaningful results are wholly impractical. Not to mention any reactionary scenarios and factors regarding materials and environment.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, divito said:

It was only understood afterwards, else none of them would have been in existence and so prevalent during their time before a scientific basis was established.

True, but we understand radio mechanisms fairly well at this point.

1 minute ago, divito said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
 

Obviously, but we can only ever go by what the evidence tells us. Right now, the evidence tells us there's literally no risk, aside from if you're standing too close to a high powered transmitter.

1 minute ago, divito said:

Yes, it reduces it, but we cannot say it does nothing at all. The amount of variables that have to be controlled to produce meaningful results are wholly impractical. Not to mention any reactionary scenarios and factors regarding materials and environment.

Again, there's no evidence, no facts, nothing to even hint that 5G might be dangerous (let alone more dangerous than 4G or 3G or WIFI or FM Radio, etc).

 

Yes, it's entirely possible that in 50 years, we might discover that 5G causes brains to melt. But the evidence right now doesn't say that. It's also possible that in 50 years, we might discover that broccoli also causes brains to melt. But again, the evidence doesn't say that right now.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Damn Sugar industry all over again.....?
Or not...

I'm like the above post.. no conclusive data on 5G health as of yet (that I've read/seen/heard) but I stopped looking pretty quickly after finding barely anything but scaremongering.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

24 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

Damn Sugar industry all over again.....?
Or not...

I'm like the above post.. no conclusive data on 5G health as of yet (that I've read/seen/heard) but I stopped looking pretty quickly after finding barely anything but scaremongering.

As it stands now, it IS largely fearmongering promoted by the tech illiterate.

 

40 minutes ago, divito said:

It was only understood afterwards, else none of them would have been in existence and so prevalent during their time before a scientific basis was established.
 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
 

Yes, it reduces it, but we cannot say it does nothing at all. The amount of variables that have to be controlled to produce meaningful results are wholly impractical. Not to mention any reactionary scenarios and factors regarding materials and environment.

To address this very quickly, many of those substances were shrouded in mystery thanks to the very strong promotional advertising of such products. When people found that Asbestos was carcinogenic, there was very strong resistance and even complete denial to the facts at hand from manufacturing sources (including cities in Quebec, Canada, and Russia). The story about tobacco, nicotine and tar is a clusterfuck along the same lines. How would any of that relate to 5G, exactly? There is very little mystery about wireless transmission; they transmit non-ionizing radiation, which has zero harm to a biological body. Also, in order for them to "affect" us, you need to amplify the signal amplitudes beyond what would be usable for wireless/cell AND build a containment unit that reflects the signals within itself. That is effectively a microwave oven, and what would happen in that case? generation of heat from the moisture, and not much else.

 

There MAY be concerns about 5G that will be discovered later down the line, but its relation to current fears is incredibly doubtful, as again, those are manufactured by the tech-illiterate charlatans who simply get into a fit over anything new in technology. Hell, there are enough of those charlatans in computer security (security via "common sense" and nothing else) and application development (FOSS or get lost).

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

That's not how things work. In the case of 5G, you could definitely say that the transmission power is lower than 4G, especially for mmWaves, but only if there are enough antennas near the user.

 

Higher frequencies = higher energy waves. Lower power doesn't make it inherently safer.

 

And transmission power can also increase in transition to new generations.

2G/GSM: 24-39dBm

3G/UMTS: 21-33dBm

4G/LTE-A: 20-23dBm

5G/NR: 23-35dBm

You do realize that the oldest tech you've listed has the highest possible power?

 

You do have a point in that it's not "as simple" as just transmission power, but there's also still no known scientific basis for how 5G might be more dangerous than previous methods.

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Do you realize NR is right next to it, with way higher gain, MIMO (which can produce power peaks of up to 55dBm), with way higher frequencies?

37 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

2G/GSM: 24-39dBm

37 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

5G/NR: 23-35dBm

You listed these - 2G/GSM is literally the same but higher on the top end.

 

You've mentioned 55dBm here, but didn't mention it before.

18 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Not saying 5G is dangerous. I said it's not inherently safer than older standards, even with lower power.

Don't disagree there. It's also not really any more dangerous either.

18 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Waiting for more research to be done, as always. People are freaking out thinking on skin cancer, etc,

More research should always be done. But current research indicates there is no problem.

18 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

while I'm really interested in mmWave RF effects on the eyes.

Is there any particular reason for concern about that? Any particular research that indicates there could be an issue with RF effects on the eyes?

 

 

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Higher frequencies = higher energy waves. Lower power doesn't make it inherently safer.

Since we're not talking about ionizing radiation the energy of the photons at low power is not really a factor (whereas it would be when talking about UV or Gamma rays). We're still a few orders of magnitude from that being a problem (and we'll never get there before going through visible light, which is pretty unlikely to happen).

 

It does of course come into play when it comes to the power at a distance - as we know from the Friis equation a smaller wavelength means that the power is more reliably sustained at a distance, meaning that the cells can emit signals at a lower power and still easily cover the required area. So overall you get much more power efficient cells that are more reliable and less dangerous in close proximity.

 

So if we assumed that the source power was the same then sure, you'd be right - a higher frequency would make it more dangerous. But since the source power is drastically lower, that's not the case.

45 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

2G/GSM: 24-39dBm

3G/UMTS: 21-33dBm

4G/LTE-A: 20-23dBm

5G/NR: 23-35dBm

Those are the maximum power levels emitted by the phone. 1) Just because regulations allow it doesn't mean phones will actually reach them (the closer the cell the lower the power...), 2) those have nothing to do with the transmitting power of the cells, which is what people seem to be freaking out over.

 

The power emitted by the average cell in urban areas is going to be around 40dBm whereas old school cell towers are closer to 50dBm.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Has that actually been scientifically confirmed, though?

 

Either way, if you're close enough to a radio transmitter of any kind that it's enough to heat your tissue to dangerous levels, you're literally standing right beside it.

IIRC there were tests done (in how temperature effects) on cancer in rats, and general growth speed of nematodes (tiny worm creatures). That found cells grew quicker if warm. But as said... that's like saying "plants grow quicker in direct sunlight." Not really a cause, just an effect of like... existing.

 

But extra heat and extra cool also kills cancer... may also kill the person (freeze/cook them!) too.

 

PS "can" and "the companies have" are the two different factors when it comes to frequency improvements/changes and the tech. It might be possible to serve customers with lower power transmitters on 5G, but I can understand people *testing*/checking the equipment is actually set correctly that way. Samsung sending "1:1" to all the mobiles might be a laugh/silly event. But a mobile mast operator accidentally turning it up to "frickesy" due to a config error, and a mistake in ordering the "military grade ray gun" version of the antennas, is not.

 

[TechyBen]

5 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

It is non-ionizing, but different frequencies affect different materials/molecules differently. 61-62GHz are known to cause issues with some cell membranes even at lower power. >65dBm at >40GHz can cause skin and eye damage with reasonably fast exposure (tens of minutes). Not saying it is absolutely dangerous, nor that it should get banned right away, or anything like that, just that better safe than sorry.

 

Yup.
1) Or if you "don't hold your phone correctly"™, shield its antennas, etc.
2) Which is kind of crazy, as your phone is way closer to you than the cells (pocket against chest or leg, or on your hand/face), most of the time you're not at LOS with the cell, being shielded by buildings/trees/whatever. If your phone is transmitting, you're probably getting way more radiation from it than from a common cell.

Yeah, the eye danger is from heating the liquid/water in the eye, IIRC, right? So it's still only as dangerous as UV/sunlamps/sun beds. But it still is a danger that needs to be checked, to stop any random person installing a transmitter next to people, or people licking a transmitter.

 

[TechyBen]

13 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I'm only aware of the heating effects, but may not be the only one. Not exactly due to the liquid, but because it's exposed. Internal organs are better protected.
AFAIK, UV is way worse than mmWaves. The manufacturing and quality control of UV lamps are way sketchier than phones, which might expose you to unhealthy amounts of UV-B/C that might get you a skin burn/cancer.

Oh, yeah. Don't even begin to mention "Ozone generators" and stuff.

[NineEyeRon]

Any Sim City fan from the late 90s/2000s will be afraid of 5G

 

[ARikozuM]

On 2/19/2020 at 3:49 PM, RonnieOP said:

There was protestors marching downtown a couple months ago over 5G.

 

I havent looked into it very much but what little i have doesnt cause me to worry but again i havent looked too much in to it. But these idiots marching in the street caused a huge traffic jam so im inclined to vote for anything they are against.

"There are people organizing against [entity] and causing me issues, so I'll vote contrary instead of taking an educated stance" excuse. 

 

I would rather be concerned over any security issues rather than health. Opening up the towers to new ISPs or the local gov't would also help rolling out these techs. 

On 2/19/2020 at 6:17 PM, TempestCatto said:

I used to work for a company that was contracted out by a big American telecom company to control traffic at their worksites while their linemen would install new poles, lay line, make repairs, etc. The crew I was assigned that day (new one everyday) had to lay line underground, fish it back up the other side of a highway, and then attach it to a pole (for support) which contained a 5G antenna. They were very upset and when I asked why, I was told this:

 

Quote

We had to have a safety course in addition to the regular training to work on them. When we work on or near them, we have to wear a special device on our belts that will sound a tone if we get too close to it. We were told that if we get close enough, and stay in front of it long enough to do any kind of work to it [while powered on] we could literally become sterile. We've watched squirrels and birds sit on top of them [while powered] and after at least 5 or so minutes, they died. I fucking hate this 5G shit. It's supposed to be the new way internet is provided. So your cellphone connects to it, and your home wifi connects to it as well. It's supposed to make our jobs easier when deploying fiber line. But it's just too risky. 

 

Ngl, that's kinda scary. 

 

On 2/20/2020 at 3:43 PM, mr moose said:

I understand, it comes down to either doing as the vocalists demand and win votes or do what's right and be looking for another job tomorrow.   I think it is exactly the same in every country.

 

 

Then do your job as a politician and speak up. There's no point in having a desk job or sending an email when you could be out there among your citizens addressing concerns. 

 

 

[mr moose]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Then do your job as a politician and speak up. There's no point in having a desk job or sending an email when you could be out there among your citizens addressing concerns. 

 

I wish they would, my local member is happy to get out in the community in the months leading up to an election, but only to promote himself and not to actually care about facts and important stuff. 

 

The rest of the time he does not exist locally and will only talk to you if you are saying something he likes.

[RonnieOP]

52 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

"There are people organizing against [entity] and causing me issues, so I'll vote contrary instead of taking an educated stance" excuse. 

 

That was more of a joke then anything. But causing a traffic jam downtown and causing people to be late for work will not get people on your side.

 

If you want change theres actual ways of doing it.

 

Pissing off locals isnt a productive way of doing it.

 

You know where that protest got them? Page 9 of the local paper for one day. And then nothing more.