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

[ARikozuM]

26 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

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.

Sounds more like the city's roadways are shit (I know that feeling with city hall being on the bridge road which causes bumper-bumper traffic daily). If there's a protest and it pisses off the locals it should have more attention. If you can't be arsed enough to find out about why the traffic is bad, you should have no say in our democratic process. Also, "being late" sounds worse than "should know the roads and detours". 

 

We're currently in the process of actually getting the bridge blocked specifically because we want the 3rd bridge plans to finally get funded like they were supposed to 5 years ago under the same mayors for both cities. Piss the populace off (snow birds come and go and we can still use the 3rd bridge to get over when they're gone)? Stop the local economy (the business owners should be the ones on the offensive for this)? Sounds better than doing nothing. 

Spoiler

For reference, both bridges are bumper-bumper from 3-7pm to and fro. 

 

[RonnieOP]

9 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Sounds more like the city's roadways are shit (I know that feeling with city hall being on the bridge road which causes bumper-bumper traffic daily). If there's a protest and it pisses off the locals it should have more attention. If you can't be arsed enough to find out about why the traffic is bad, you should have no say in our democratic process. Also, "being late" sounds worse than "should know the roads and detours". 

 

We're currently in the process of actually getting the bridge blocked specifically because we want the 3rd bridge plans to finally get funded like they were supposed to 5 years ago under the same mayors for both cities. Piss the populace off (snow birds come and go and we can still use the 3rd bridge to get over when they're gone)? Stop the local economy (the business owners should be the ones on the offensive for this)? Sounds better than doing nothing. 

  Hide contents

For reference, both bridges are bumper-bumper from 3-7pm to and fro. 

 

Vote him out then. You act as if local businesses have some sort of secret power that will make a change.

 

Personally id rather they arrest the people blocking traffic since they are breaking the law (which thankfully they do here if they dont take it off the road). but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand here.

[Kisai]

On 2/19/2020 at 10:32 AM, Delicieuxz said:

 

Switzerland halts rollout of 5G over health concerns

 

It looks like not every country is eager to implement 5G. I'm satisfied with 4G for my uses, and 5G sounds a bit impractical to me, so I favour waiting for more research to be conducted before getting 5G locally.

Most of the time, "danger" of mobile phone radiation is overblown, as it's so incredibly low power to not matter. However people can in fact "feel" cell phone radiation if they have the antenna surface pressing against their face while a call is received (ringing) or a text message is received. We've all known this forever. Sitting there in the call center for AT&T and hearing "tick-tick-a-tick-tick" sounds through our headsets when the user does things on their mobile phone from their other phone. You also hear it when you put it near an amplified speaker (eg a clock radio) , or amplified headsets (such as when users in the call center don't turn their phone off.)

 

Yet, when LTE rolled out, all that noise disappeared. 

 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7879218

Output Power Levels of 4G UE and Implications on Realistic RF EMF Exposure Assessments

 

Quote

The mean 4G UE output power level was found to be less than 1% of the maximum power, which may be compared with the mean 3G UE output power level for data application in [12], which was found to be about 3% of the maximum power.

 

Output power measurements for a large number of 4G user equipment using data applications were conducted in a LTE network in Sweden. The output power levels were found to be significantly below the maximum possible power, with the mean output power being less than 1% of the maximum for all considered environments.

 

The normalized realistic output power also represents an estimate of realistic uplink exposure level with respect to the maximum possible exposure. This implies that EMF compliance assessments of UE, which are usually conducted at the maximum possible output power levels, provide very conservative results. In line with previous findings for 2G and 3G radio access technologies, knowledge on realistic output power levels is important for accurate assessments of RF EMF exposure from 4G mobile communication UE.

 

So what about 5G?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/

Quote

In summary, the majority of studies with MMW exposures show biological responses. From this observation, however, no in-depth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6–100 GHz frequency range. The studies are very different and the total number of studies is surprisingly low. The reactions occur both in vivo and in vitro and affect all biological endpoints studied.

There does not seem to be a consistent relationship between intensity (power density), exposure time, or frequency, and the effects of exposure. On the contrary, and strikingly, higher power densities do not cause more frequent responses, since the percentage of responses in most frequency groups is already at 70%. Some authors refer to their study results as having “non-thermal” causes, but few have applied appropriate temperature controls. The question therefore remains whether warming is the main cause of any observed MMW effects?

Basically "We know stuff happens across the board, but no one aspect is responsible"

 

I could see that kind of issue being taken as "perhaps this is too dangerous to roll out until we know what safe frequencies and power levels to use"

 

However perhaps we should go back to the wireless carriers and say "upgrade you existing networks to more efficient tech first"

 

[Sakkura]

8 hours 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. 

This is a useless argument. You can't just claim something causes cancer without evidence. You could claim that about literally anything. Possible carcinogens could thus include:

• Thinking about unicorns
• Stroking an octopus
• Looking at green paint with your left eye closed while pinching your right earlobe
• Mayonnaise mixed with freshly cut grass

In this case it's even worse, as we've been using radio equipment for decades and have found no evidence that it causes cancer (but lots of evidence that it either doesn't cause cancer, or at least would have an extremely small effect).

[Kisai]

7 hours 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.

 

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.

That reminds me. At one of the Victoria Hospitals, if you go to the top floor via the stairs there is sign:

 

[Donut417]

23 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Possible carcinogens could thus include:

Just remember all of those in the state of California causes cancer. Because according to California everyting causes cancer. 

[divito]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

This is a useless argument. You can't just claim something causes cancer without evidence. You could claim that about literally anything. Possible carcinogens could thus include:

Huh, when did I claim it caused cancer? 
 

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

In this case it's even worse, as we've been using radio equipment for decades and have found no evidence that it causes cancer (but lots of evidence that it either doesn't cause cancer, or at least would have an extremely small effect).

No, using radio equipment doesn't magically equate to cancer developing, but to say that someone's biological and environmental history has no physiological response that might lead to cancer is wholly simplistic and naive. Not every person who is discovered to have cancer can get an explanation on how it formed, because again, the variability from person to person is immense.

Even the American Cancer Society notes that there is concern in some circumstances (in relation to non-ionizing radiation) and that it's hard to study to know for sure.

"Most lab studies done so far have supported the idea that RF waves don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research."

 

They also point out that the "IARC has stated that there is limited evidence that RF radiation causes cancer in animals and humans, and classifies RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). " 

The National Cancer Institute also says "No mechanism by which ELF-EMFs or radiofrequency radiation could cause cancer has been identified. Unlike high-energy (ionizing) radiation, EMFs in the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot damage DNA or cells directly. Some scientists have speculated that ELF-EMFs could cause cancer through other mechanisms, such as by reducing levels of the hormone melatonin. There is some evidence that melatonin may suppress the development of certain tumors."

I'm not saying it causes cancer, but like the tobacco and sugar industry of the past (and we know what happened there), giant telecoms have a lot of influence to do what they need to do. It's also difficult to ever really show correlation/causation; along with the environmental and biological variability, technology changes quickly all over the world, medicine has improved tremendously, and things like smoking and other agents have seen their use decline over time.

The NCI, IARC, and ACS point out all the information quite well and note that while there is no known mechanism that's been identified, there are still several areas that require more research, or that some studies haven't been big enough to adequately gauge exposure issues and that several areas of research have shown inconsistent results to meaningful make a determination.

[Sakkura]

6 hours ago, divito said:

Huh, when did I claim it caused cancer? 
 

No, using radio equipment doesn't magically equate to cancer developing, but to say that someone's biological and environmental history has no physiological response that might lead to cancer is wholly simplistic and naive. Not every person who is discovered to have cancer can get an explanation on how it formed, because again, the variability from person to person is immense.

Even the American Cancer Society notes that there is concern in some circumstances (in relation to non-ionizing radiation) and that it's hard to study to know for sure.

"Most lab studies done so far have supported the idea that RF waves don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how RF radiation might be able to cause cancer. A few studies have reported evidence of biological effects that could be linked to cancer, but this is still an area of research."

 

They also point out that the "IARC has stated that there is limited evidence that RF radiation causes cancer in animals and humans, and classifies RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). " 

The National Cancer Institute also says "No mechanism by which ELF-EMFs or radiofrequency radiation could cause cancer has been identified. Unlike high-energy (ionizing) radiation, EMFs in the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot damage DNA or cells directly. Some scientists have speculated that ELF-EMFs could cause cancer through other mechanisms, such as by reducing levels of the hormone melatonin. There is some evidence that melatonin may suppress the development of certain tumors."

I'm not saying it causes cancer, but like the tobacco and sugar industry of the past (and we know what happened there), giant telecoms have a lot of influence to do what they need to do. It's also difficult to ever really show correlation/causation; along with the environmental and biological variability, technology changes quickly all over the world, medicine has improved tremendously, and things like smoking and other agents have seen their use decline over time.

The NCI, IARC, and ACS point out all the information quite well and note that while there is no known mechanism that's been identified, there are still several areas that require more research, or that some studies haven't been big enough to adequately gauge exposure issues and that several areas of research have shown inconsistent results to meaningful make a determination.

I didn't say you specifically.

 

In any case, you're strongly implying that it causes cancer, which is irresponsible.

 

Not all aspects of biological and environmental history will be relevant to development of cancer. There is zero evidence 5G or other normal radio equipment increases the risk of cancer.

 

And you're wrong - it is NOT difficult to show correlation. The difficulty is deciding whether a correlation is causally based, once you've found the correlation. But that's not relevant here, because what we have is the absence of correlation. Considering how long we've been using radio, and how widely used it has been, that absence of correlation is very strong evidence that radio equipment does not cause cancer - or at worst, that any effect would be so tiny it's almost meaningless (like how flying is technically carcinogenic, just at too low a level to worry about).

[Sauron]

15 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

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).

>65dBm is over 2 orders of magnitude higher than 5G base stations will expose you to if you hug them.

16 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Not saying it is absolutely dangerous, nor that it should get banned right away, or anything like that, just that better safe than sorry.

Well sure but since studies have been made and no correlation between these waves at those power levels and health risks have been found I would say we're pretty safe. If people are so worried about these things why aren't they rioting over people smoking in their neighborhoods? Smoke has been quite clearly linked to all sorts of health risks including lung cancer, even if you're not the one smoking. And yet we choose to freak out over 5G with nothing at all to base the claim that it's dangerous on.

16 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

1) Or if you "don't hold your phone correctly"™, shield its antennas, etc.

Well no, those are absolute emission limits. There is also shielding in place so you get less exposure when holding your phone directly on your ear, which is the most potentially dangerous situation, but all that means is that you're generally going to get less than that limit or, at most in rare circumstances, that limit.

16 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

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.

Yes, exactly. Which is why this whole hysteria about there being more cells is absolutely ridiculous.

15 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

AFAIK, UV is way worse than mmWaves.

For that matter, visible light is much worse than mmWaves. We're talking THz instead of GHz.

[Bramimond]

For me this is really simple. I don't understand any of this stuff to opine on the safety or lack thereof, but I know two things. (1) I don't need 5G and (2) there's a discussion about the safety of 5G going on.

 

So for me, this is a closed case: ban 5G.

 

Once 5G is proven to be safe to the degree that I won't encounter discussions about whether it's safe or not, it's not too late to unban it.

 

 

It was possible in the past to convince people like me, who don't understand any of this stuff, that smoking was perfectly safe and then some 50 years later it turns out, whoopsie, that wasn't true. So I won't fall for the "we can convince you it's perfectly safe" crowd. This is now an emotional debate.

(Source: freefall)

By arguing logic, you're talking right past everyone opposing it. Besides, lots of people like me don't understand any of this technical stuff anyway, so it's useless.

 

Worst case when banning 5G is that it turns out to have been completely safe. I'm losing nothing in that scenario. Worst case when not banning 5G, it turns out to be harmful to people in some way. I'm losing something in that scenario.

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

Once 5G is proven to be safe to the degree that I won't encounter discussions about whether it's safe or not, it's not too late to unban it.

By this logic we should ban all radio communication. You do know there are "Tin Foil Hat" people who claim they are senstive to radio waves. On top of those who feel WiFi isnt safe and that pretty much all radio waves are bad. The fact is you will never stop disccusion on it. I have one of those people in my home town, seen her posts on our city's facebook page number of times. Talking about why Smart Electric meters are bad and why WiFi and 5G is bad. I just shake my head at those posts. 

 

 

[Curious Pineapple]

15 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

For me this is really simple. I don't understand any of this stuff to opine on the safety or lack thereof, but I know two things. (1) I don't need 5G and (2) there's a discussion about the safety of 5G going on.

 

So for me, this is a closed case: ban 5G.

 

Once 5G is proven to be safe to the degree that I won't encounter discussions about whether it's safe or not, it's not too late to unban it.

So you're one of those that advocates against something you have zero understanding of?

 

There's discussion about the safety of cars, electricity, tomatoes, beef, eggs, breathing and any number of other things. There's also the issues around people who have zero understanding advocating against vaccines and medicine, and the death toll of that is rising every day. Unfortunately it's children that are suffering due to the lack of understanding of their most likely vaccinated parents.

[Sakkura]

58 minutes ago, Bramimond said:

For me this is really simple. I don't understand any of this stuff to opine on the safety or lack thereof, but I know two things. (1) I don't need 5G and (2) there's a discussion about the safety of 5G going on.

 

So for me, this is a closed case: ban 5G.

 

Once 5G is proven to be safe to the degree that I won't encounter discussions about whether it's safe or not, it's not too late to unban it.

Going by this logic, we may have to ban literally everything. You can accuse anything of being unsafe, and it's ultimately impossible to prove a negative. It's even worse when you aren't even talking about evidence, but just whether there's a discussion - because people can argue stuff even if it's been disproven.

[Lurick]

1 hour ago, Bramimond said:

-snip-

So basically we should halt any and all technological advancements because people don't want to try and understand them because it's "new and spooky"?

[RonnieOP]

2 hours ago, Bramimond said:

For me this is really simple. I don't understand any of this stuff to opine on the safety or lack thereof, but I know two things. (1) I don't need 5G and (2) there's a discussion about the safety of 5G going on.

 

So for me, this is a closed case: ban 5G.

 

Once 5G is proven to be safe to the degree that I won't encounter discussions about whether it's safe or not, it's not too late to unban it.

 

 

It was possible in the past to convince people like me, who don't understand any of this stuff, that smoking was perfectly safe and then some 50 years later it turns out, whoopsie, that wasn't true. So I won't fall for the "we can convince you it's perfectly safe" crowd. This is now an emotional debate.

(Source: freefall)

By arguing logic, you're talking right past everyone opposing it. Besides, lots of people like me don't understand any of this technical stuff anyway, so it's useless.

 

Worst case when banning 5G is that it turns out to have been completely safe. I'm losing nothing in that scenario. Worst case when not banning 5G, it turns out to be harmful to people in some way. I'm losing something in that scenario.

There are still people who think keeping a cell phone in your pocket will give you testicular cancer....

 

We will never get to a point where people are going to stop making baseless claims.

 

How about instead of catering to people who bring no factual data we ignore them?

 

If we let the worry of dumb people make the rules 90% of the the world would be banned.

 

If theres no real data to support their claims then their claims shouldnt be listened to. I couldnt tell you how a lot of things work and couldnt argue with someone claiming all of it was unsafe. Thats why you dont let people like me determine if microwaves should be legal or not. You let the qualified people handle that.

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Yup, it definitely is an unrealistic scenario, but still useful to show what kind of damage you can get.

I mean why don't we just go with putting your hand in a microwave oven if we just want to "show what damage you can get" without any sense of scale or realism?

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I'd like to see the results of a long-term exposure experiment with rats using varying levels of transmission power, at different frequencies, with few samples thoroughly studied every few months.

We have that, results were inconclusive. They exposed a whole lot of rats to much higher radiation levels than is realistic and they only found a weak correlation in male rats. Depending on how you run the statistic you can actually find that the radiation reduced the risk of cancer in the rats. In short, there is no consistent link and any positive correlation was just the result of p hacking and cherry picking the samples.

8 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Those are one of the absolute limits you can put out. You can get higher than that, in a smaller area, with MIMO, and there's another limit for that.

MIMO applies to the base stations, not the phones. Regardless at 20m the power is way too low for it to matter.

[Curious Pineapple]

You need to take into account that with multiple masts they are not going to have perfectly synchronized oscillators, so you can't even add up the output power of all of them and work out the energy levels at a given distance from them. If any are 180 degrees out of phase, then they will effectively cancel each other out. The distance from them will also alter the phase angle at the point of interaction.

 

There's a lot more to it than "many masts bad because add power together big numbers" conspiracytard thinking. Even microwave ovens, devices designed to heat with RF energy have "cold spots" inside due to standing waves, thats why most rotate the food and it is recommended to stir whatever you are heating.

[divito]

7 hours ago, Sakkura said:

In any case, you're strongly implying that it causes cancer, which is irresponsible.

I didn't imply anything. I took issue with the broad statements people were making in that there is no evidence. The actual research institutes showcase conflicting studies, state that more research needs to be done, and it's classified as possibly carcinogenic; and yet we have LTT forum-goers thinking they know better than the scientists and organizations behind the research.

 

7 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Not all aspects of biological and environmental history will be relevant to development of cancer. 

Correct; but some are enough, hence people develop cancer.

 

7 hours ago, Sakkura said:

There is zero evidence 5G or other normal radio equipment increases the risk of cancer.

5G hasn't had enough time to make that type of determination. From the above-listed study:
 

Spoiler

 

"Exposure of humans can occur through 5G devices with frequencies above 6 GHz, and may be primarily on the skin and, to a lesser extent, on the eyes. This is due to the very low penetration depth of this MMW. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether there are any health-related effects on the skin and/or effects associated with the skin. These include acute skin damage from tissue heating (burns), but possibly also less acute effects (such as inflammation, tumor development, etc.). Such effects could appear after prolonged and repeated heating of superficial structures (the skin). This would mean that thermal effects occur that are not due to acute but to chronic damage.

It may also be that local exposure causes energy deposition in the dermis of the skin, which may be so great as to affect nerve endings and peripheral blood vessels through warming mechanisms. Such scenarios were proposed by Ziskin [9] based on a series of studies by his group. These studies typically used exposures around 60 GHz at a power density of 10 mW/cm2 on the skin in the sternum area to produce systemic effects. The aim was to treat certain diseases and complaints. The idea was that the treatment induces the release of the body’s own opioids and additionally stimulates the peripheral nerves. The stimulation would depend on a local thermal effect, which, due to the frequencies, induces locally high SAR values, even at low power densities, thus warming the tissue.
 

Due to the contradictory information from various lines of evidence that cannot be scientifically explained, and given the large gaps in knowledge regarding the health impact of MMW in the 6–100 GHz frequency range at relevant power densities for 5G, research is needed at many levels. It is important to define exact frequency ranges and power densities for possible research projects. There is an urgent need for research in the areas of dosimetry, in vivo dose-response studies and the question of non-thermal effects. It is therefore recommended that the following knowledge gaps should be closed by appropriate research (the list of research recommendations is not prioritized)"

 

And there's somewhat of a solid compendium-type article done by Vox at the end of 2018 that goes over a lot of this. 

"But there is also some ambiguity about cellphone radiation’s health effects. As Dr. John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a co-author of the NIH studies, told me, “[Our results] go against the notion that non-ionizing radiation is completely harmless.” In other words, he’s found that the type of radiation cellphones give off could cause biological changes, like promoting tumors, at least in animals.

As I started poking around on cellphone radiation, many researchers expressed the same concern: We can’t fully understand its potential impact on human health because the way we live with these radiation-emitting devices keeps changing."

My position is not that is causes cancer or needs to be cancelled, but am echoing what each research institute and scientists are saying, we need way more high quality data and studies to accurately assess the impact it's having. Along with the wireless industry commissioning a lot of the studies, the fact that there are many poor studies and conflicting results means all the people trying to claim there's no evidence is misguided, at best. At this point, we don't know. The results are disconcerting, simply because they're not indicative of real-world scenarios and don't adequately track any compounding effects. 

[TechyBen]

20 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Some of them do work (ozone has a very distinct smell). Great for sterilizing water.

Yes, they work. But so does direct electrode immersion water boiling. It "works" but people don't understand why, how safe it is, or where/when to use it and *when to not*.!

 

[Sakkura]

18 minutes ago, divito said:

I didn't imply anything. I took issue with the broad statements people were making in that there is no evidence. The actual research institutes showcase conflicting studies, state that more research needs to be done, and it's classified as possibly carcinogenic; and yet we have LTT forum-goers thinking they know better than the scientists and organizations behind the research.

 

Correct; but some are enough, hence people develop cancer.

 

5G hasn't had enough time to make that type of determination. From the above-listed study:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

"Exposure of humans can occur through 5G devices with frequencies above 6 GHz, and may be primarily on the skin and, to a lesser extent, on the eyes. This is due to the very low penetration depth of this MMW. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether there are any health-related effects on the skin and/or effects associated with the skin. These include acute skin damage from tissue heating (burns), but possibly also less acute effects (such as inflammation, tumor development, etc.). Such effects could appear after prolonged and repeated heating of superficial structures (the skin). This would mean that thermal effects occur that are not due to acute but to chronic damage.

It may also be that local exposure causes energy deposition in the dermis of the skin, which may be so great as to affect nerve endings and peripheral blood vessels through warming mechanisms. Such scenarios were proposed by Ziskin [9] based on a series of studies by his group. These studies typically used exposures around 60 GHz at a power density of 10 mW/cm2 on the skin in the sternum area to produce systemic effects. The aim was to treat certain diseases and complaints. The idea was that the treatment induces the release of the body’s own opioids and additionally stimulates the peripheral nerves. The stimulation would depend on a local thermal effect, which, due to the frequencies, induces locally high SAR values, even at low power densities, thus warming the tissue.
 

Due to the contradictory information from various lines of evidence that cannot be scientifically explained, and given the large gaps in knowledge regarding the health impact of MMW in the 6–100 GHz frequency range at relevant power densities for 5G, research is needed at many levels. It is important to define exact frequency ranges and power densities for possible research projects. There is an urgent need for research in the areas of dosimetry, in vivo dose-response studies and the question of non-thermal effects. It is therefore recommended that the following knowledge gaps should be closed by appropriate research (the list of research recommendations is not prioritized)"

 

And there's somewhat of a solid compendium-type article done by Vox at the end of 2018 that goes over a lot of this. 

"But there is also some ambiguity about cellphone radiation’s health effects. As Dr. John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a co-author of the NIH studies, told me, “[Our results] go against the notion that non-ionizing radiation is completely harmless.” In other words, he’s found that the type of radiation cellphones give off could cause biological changes, like promoting tumors, at least in animals.

As I started poking around on cellphone radiation, many researchers expressed the same concern: We can’t fully understand its potential impact on human health because the way we live with these radiation-emitting devices keeps changing."

My position is not that is causes cancer or needs to be cancelled, but am echoing what each research institute and scientists are saying, we need way more high quality data and studies to accurately assess the impact it's having. Along with the wireless industry commissioning a lot of the studies, the fact that there are many poor studies and conflicting results means all the people trying to claim there's no evidence is misguided, at best. At this point, we don't know. The results are disconcerting, simply because they're not indicative of real-world scenarios and don't adequately track any compounding effects. 

Yes, you did strongly imply something, and now you're doubling down on it.

 

There is no evidence that 5G is carcinogenic in humans to any real extent. Yes, more research needs to be done, but that doesn't mean there's evidence it's carcinogenic, just that we'd like to have more evidence that it isn't.

 

5G doesn't need time to not have evidence, that's putting things backwards. The moment something is invented, you lack evidence about whether or not it's harmful. Evidence (one way or the other, or both) accumulates as you study it. The only caveat here is 5G is a subtype of radio communication, which has already been studied for many decades... with zero evidence of carcinogenicity (outside of thermal effects, which are irrelevant to real-world 5G).

 

Being classified as a class 2B carcinogen is essentially meaningless. As the Vox article mentions, other class 2B carcinogens are "pickles, aloe vera, and being a carpenter."

 

You're misrepresenting the science to spread FUD.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

In this case, for 900 and 1900MHz. I've seen studies about 2.4GHz, mainly because of microwave ovens and WiFi/bluetooth, but no long-term studies like this one for 24-80GHz.

I mean... by that logic where are the long term studies on visible light? It's better to have a study than not, but there isn't really any reason to expect the results to be any different. If you could make some sensible, science based conjecture on how EM radiation at 24-80GHz at those levels of power could cause damage then sure, a study would be extremely important - but nobody can. The best "arguments" alarmists have brought to the table are either "omg there are more so it must be worse" (which is a point I feel like I have debunked by now) or "hurr durr we can't be 100000000% sure it's not dangerous until we run a 50 year test on a million mice across 20 generations" (I love hyperbole), which is a pretty weak position to take.

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

MIMO applies to both stations and phones (up to 4 antennas on 4G). Massive MIMO or Multi-User MIMO are currently restricted to base stations, but everything seems to indicate not for long (current Qualcomm mmWave antenna modules have 8 antennas each, and phones are supposed to use at least 2 or 3 of them).

Can I see a source on the peak power levels for those base stations? All information I could find points to about 20W max output for the highest capacity base stations. I'm pretty sure that's not per antenna, but if you can find sources showing otherwise...

 

Also since 4G also did that isn't this kind of a moot point?

[greenmax]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I'm not against 5G at all.

But we are all against back door hacks from Huwaii

[greenmax]

7 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

And from Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc, etc.

Those backdoor hacks would be endorsed by the CIA and internal defense teams on spying on citizens so no concerns would be raised. Only concern is China hence Huawaiiia

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

The values I've listed before are not per antenna, but per channel. There's also a problem with different units: the UE values were in TRP (radiated power in all directions), while the 55dBm value for NR was in EIRP (radiated power in a given direction).
You can find the base stations TRP values in the page 44 (24,38,TBD dBm for local, medium, wide range BS) and the dynamic range for REs in page 46 (up to [-6,+4] dBm). TRP values for beams in page 122 (33,47,TBD dBm). All of them are per channel (that 3GPP like to call carriers because they love to be confusing).  https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/2019-09/Rel-16/38_series/38104-g10.zip

Is it? 4G was made for sub 6GHz operation, with far less cells and operating channels in mind.

 

Just to make things clear, I'm not against 5G at all. I do work on that, but my work is focused on the MAC.
 

Also, ITU released guidelines in small cells deployment that are pretty much a guarantee people won't get exposed to high power mmWave radiation (unless someone does something severely stupid like, as you said, hug the antenna). In that same whitepaper, there's an example of 53dBm TRP resulting in ~74dBm EIRP.

 

https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-K.Sup16-201905-I!!PDF-E&type=items

 

It seems to me like we're basically agreeing here, most cells in densely populated areas are likely to be in the <= 10W range and they'll all be installed at a minimum safe distance so the hysteria around higher density installations is baseless.

[Sauron]

16 minutes ago, greenmax said:

Those backdoor hacks would be endorsed by the CIA and internal defense teams on spying on citizens so no concerns would be raised. Only concern is China hence Huawaiiia

I'm sorry, in what way is it preferable to be spied on by the CIA?

 

Also while there is some concern there, TLS has basically made internet eavesdropping impossible even if you control the hotspots. At best they can know what sites you contacted (not even that if you use tor or a vpn) but not what you did on them.