[sagitariusrex]

As a side note: My biggest disappointment regarding the 5G discussion with respect to potential health implications is the widespread lack of acknowledgement about the fact that we have not yet conducted any meaningful scientific experiments (let alone ones whose methodology is robust) to even hold a meaningful debate.

It's derailed into a political debate between those who "know for a fact" there are zero health implications and those who "know for a fact" that you'll certainly die within a week from a 5g antenna being placed next to your apartment.

[vardump]

If the energy isn't enough to ionize, then what is there to study?

(Extreme) heating effects can cause cancer, but the source of heat is irrelevant. The power levels 5G uses make even this point completely moot.

If you really have to search for something that could cause you cancer, perhaps those rather carcinogenic compounds your phone is made out of could be studied instead? Although I prefer just not to pulverize my phone and breath in the resulting dust. :-)

[willis936]

There has been a fabled danger of low levels of non-ionizing radiation without an explained mechanism for decades. There is no data to support it, but there will never be enough “studies” to disprove it.

[tzs]

> If the energy isn't enough to ionize, then what is there to study?

DNA is conductive, and there are researchers who believe that this might be an important component in how the cell detects and repairs damage to its DNA [1].

There have been a couple of papers that claim that DNA can act as a fractal antenna allowing it to react to wavelengths that you would at first expect to be way too large to affect it. Here's one [2], which claims it interacts over a wide range of frequencies with a resonance at 34 GHz.

If DNA charge transport does turn out to play an important role in how the cell identifies damaged DNA, and if it turns out that those fractal antenna claims are true, then we'd have a potential mechanism for non-ionizing, non-heating radiation to increase cancer rates.

Note that it would not cause cancer, but it might prevent a cell from finding and repairing damage that if left unrepaired will lead to cancer.

The first part of the above, that DNA is conductive, is firmly established. How the cell detects damaged DNA is not known. That charge transport plays a role in that is currently just one theory that researchers are studying, but it is a theory that if it turns out to be true will not surprise anyone.

I haven't been able to find much on fractal antennas, especially very small ones, so can't tell if the claims about DNA acting as an antenna have merit.

[1] http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/Research.htm

[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5699-4_...

[Jonnax]

What experiments when the majority of 5G deployments will be using the same bands as 4G?

What are the specific health concerns from what 5G is doing differently to 4G?

Because I remember a couple of petitions from scientists none of whom in the radio field with no specific scientific information or concerns.

[fsh]

Possible health effects of non-ionizing radiation have been studied in all kinds of frequency bands for many decades. So far, no significant effects that go beyond heating have been found, and there is no known mechanism that could cause such effects.

[hnhg]

To argue devil's advocate, the scientific literature commenting on this says that existing studies are in too short a timeframe to draw long-term conclusions. I haven't dived into this other than a search on PubMed so it's a question of faith either way.

[hnhg]

I've tended to side with the "5G must be safe" crew but to see the other side I checked pubmed and found a fair few reputable-looking studies such as this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31991167

So, yeah, how much do we know for a fact? I say that as a true sceptic (i.e. sceptical with my own views as well as anyone else's). Decades ago we knew for a fact that dumping a ton of plastic into the environment was totally fine. Also we "didn't know for a fact" that greenhouse gas emissions could play a part in affecting our climate for the worse.

[cogman10]

> So, yeah, how much do we know for a fact?

Because it is transmitted at the same frequency as previous cell phone technologies. There are literally decades worth of studies around the effects of nonionizing radiation.

The only thing 5G changes is the transmission protocol.

It's fine to be a skeptic, but this is fear mongering. We don't need a 20 year long study to prove something we've known to be safe for 20 years because some crackpots claim it makes them nauseous or causes cancer. If you are going to be skeptical, why aren't you skeptical of the unverified negative claims?

Where's my proof? Google "non-ionizing radiation health". Would find a bunch of articles from reputable sources that all land on the same conclusion. It's safe.

Here's the CDC article on it. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizing_radiation.htm...

[sschueller]

My disappointment is the lack of discussion regarding privacy. It was posted on HN just a few weeks ago how a human can be identified by its gate with high density deployment of antennas.

[willis936]

It’s also simply wasteful.

5G’s benefits over 4G are:

-

4G’s benefits over 5G are:

- Fewer towers necessary because larger coverage areas

- Better penetration of materials

- Doesn’t interfere with weather data collection

Why is there even a push for 5G? What is the benefit to the consumer? A higher bill because a 10x increase in infrastructure is necessary? Asinine. Just use wifi. I don’t understand what 5G was even made to technically accomplish.

[jacquesm]

Flagging this comment for being of the 'both sides' variety without having a basic understanding of the underlying material.