mmWave is definitely dangerous to your health. On the bright side, however, we don't have to stand right next to a cell tower or 5G transmitter for 8-12 hours a day like the DHS/TSA has to stand next to the backscatter scanners. These wavelengths are absorbed very easily by trees/foliage, walls, even most windows in modern homes will block these high frequencies. Cue the tinfoil-hat meme but in this case, that would do the trick.
The problems here are multi-faceted. And again, this is definitely a public health issue that should be addressed, but there are plenty of misconceptions about 5G as well. The underlying technology behind 5G, or "NR" (New Radio) technology as it's been labeled in the industry, isn't in itself inherently very much worse than existing 4G (or LTE) technology exists as we have it today. The LTE air interface is based on Orthogonal Frequency-Duplexed (or Frequency Division) Multiple Access (OFDMA) technology. This means that within a given channel's bandwidth, there are hundreds of individual sessions cut up into small, targeted virtual channels that carry your data or voice call. 5G itself, used in existing spectrum and power levels probably wouldn't be an issue.
Anyway, in contrast to 4G/5G is the much safer Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) air interfaces. In a CDMA channel, the entire bandwidth is used at all times, meaning that the sessions are just virtually encoded with what is essentially an encryption key that pulls the data it needs out of the large stream. It requires more processing power at the base station and handset to encode and decode, but is safer because there are no narrowband pulses like those found in TDMA/GSM and LTE. Since the power is spread out across a wider area in CDMA (or even wider in WCDMA/UMTS channels, which I won't get into here) it is less dangerous to be absorbed by your body.
Anyway, the air interface itself aside, the real dangers with 5G (or even LTE or to a lesser degree CDMA) is the frequency range being used and the proximity of people to the base station. See the "Inverse Square Law" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) As it stands today, most cellular base stations are spaced a mile or two apart, wider spaces as you get more rural and shorter spacing is used in heavily urbanized areas. If mmWave was just being placed on existing cell sites and that was it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But since the high frequencies are so easily attenuated (weakened), it would be next to useless unless you were just about literally standing next to the cell phone tower. Here comes the next issue: the goal is to have these mmWave base stations on every light pole and utility box to provide a useful level of coverage. Now there's a problem, because if the cell providers plans come to fruition you'll always be in range of one of these dangerous, high-frequency transmitters at least when outdoors.
Another bright side to this though, is that the phone companies are notoriously cheap and never seem to build their networks as dense and robust as they need to in order to provide the levels of coverage and service they advertise. They barely cover the suburban and rural areas adequately even using today's safer low and mid-band spectrum, and seem to mainly focus on the inner-cities. This is definitely another +1 for living in the suburbs or better yet, out in the country. It would be decades before they can run enough fiber optic cables to support their 5G pipe dreams.
So, in short, these high frequencies are dangerous when you're near them, and the new air interfaces don't help matters. But unless you're already in a death-inducing big city, you probably won't have much to worry about unless you're sitting out on your back porch all day with one of these base station a few feet away on the utility pole, which is what they ultimately want. It's no good, and I don't even think existing LTE is safe when you're near the base stations using low frequencies, but like most things it'll be a slow boil to get it all installed (so they can say how safe it is because we've been using it for years with "no problems" even though it isn't at full capacity) and I don't know if there's any way to ever bring the health issues to light.
Really great reply. Thanks for posting this. You should read the book "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg. I think it might interest you, since you seem to have sufficient knowledge to appreciate this book.
Although I don't disagree with your technical explanation, I think you may be surprised how harmful this radiation actually is on a subtle epidemiological level. What I mean by this is that if you would just stare at overall cancer rates, you would think not much is going on, but if you start to look at a much bigger picture, you will start to see some very worrying developments. The cancer issue is really a distraction, while the real problems simmer away elsewhere. The book explains most of these issues very well.
I hope you consider reading it, because someone with your high technical knowledge, would be a really good asset to have in the fight against this madness. Of course you choose what you want to do, but just having this extra knowledge in your head, will already allow you to asses the situation with a much wider perspective than now, and perhaps in the future you would be able to post comments with even greater insights.
Thanks for reading my post. I will definitely try to check this book out, as this is a topic I am very interested in. But I wouldn't be surprised to know how harmful all of this really is. I didn't go into detail about the sheer amount of RF pollution we deal with on a daily basis. I would have lost even the 5% of people who bothered to read my TL;DR post. But Wi-Fi APs, smart meters, smart homes, the pervasiveness of Bluetooth, cell phones in our pockets all day long right next to our bodies. I'm sure it's killing us, even if we can't see it.
But I will bookmark this post and check back when I have more time, as I have to go now. But thanks again for reading and understading.
view the rest of the comments →
EvilWizardManannan ago
mmWave is definitely dangerous to your health. On the bright side, however, we don't have to stand right next to a cell tower or 5G transmitter for 8-12 hours a day like the DHS/TSA has to stand next to the backscatter scanners. These wavelengths are absorbed very easily by trees/foliage, walls, even most windows in modern homes will block these high frequencies. Cue the tinfoil-hat meme but in this case, that would do the trick.
The problems here are multi-faceted. And again, this is definitely a public health issue that should be addressed, but there are plenty of misconceptions about 5G as well. The underlying technology behind 5G, or "NR" (New Radio) technology as it's been labeled in the industry, isn't in itself inherently very much worse than existing 4G (or LTE) technology exists as we have it today. The LTE air interface is based on Orthogonal Frequency-Duplexed (or Frequency Division) Multiple Access (OFDMA) technology. This means that within a given channel's bandwidth, there are hundreds of individual sessions cut up into small, targeted virtual channels that carry your data or voice call. 5G itself, used in existing spectrum and power levels probably wouldn't be an issue.
Anyway, in contrast to 4G/5G is the much safer Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) air interfaces. In a CDMA channel, the entire bandwidth is used at all times, meaning that the sessions are just virtually encoded with what is essentially an encryption key that pulls the data it needs out of the large stream. It requires more processing power at the base station and handset to encode and decode, but is safer because there are no narrowband pulses like those found in TDMA/GSM and LTE. Since the power is spread out across a wider area in CDMA (or even wider in WCDMA/UMTS channels, which I won't get into here) it is less dangerous to be absorbed by your body.
Anyway, the air interface itself aside, the real dangers with 5G (or even LTE or to a lesser degree CDMA) is the frequency range being used and the proximity of people to the base station. See the "Inverse Square Law" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) As it stands today, most cellular base stations are spaced a mile or two apart, wider spaces as you get more rural and shorter spacing is used in heavily urbanized areas. If mmWave was just being placed on existing cell sites and that was it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. But since the high frequencies are so easily attenuated (weakened), it would be next to useless unless you were just about literally standing next to the cell phone tower. Here comes the next issue: the goal is to have these mmWave base stations on every light pole and utility box to provide a useful level of coverage. Now there's a problem, because if the cell providers plans come to fruition you'll always be in range of one of these dangerous, high-frequency transmitters at least when outdoors.
Another bright side to this though, is that the phone companies are notoriously cheap and never seem to build their networks as dense and robust as they need to in order to provide the levels of coverage and service they advertise. They barely cover the suburban and rural areas adequately even using today's safer low and mid-band spectrum, and seem to mainly focus on the inner-cities. This is definitely another +1 for living in the suburbs or better yet, out in the country. It would be decades before they can run enough fiber optic cables to support their 5G pipe dreams.
So, in short, these high frequencies are dangerous when you're near them, and the new air interfaces don't help matters. But unless you're already in a death-inducing big city, you probably won't have much to worry about unless you're sitting out on your back porch all day with one of these base station a few feet away on the utility pole, which is what they ultimately want. It's no good, and I don't even think existing LTE is safe when you're near the base stations using low frequencies, but like most things it'll be a slow boil to get it all installed (so they can say how safe it is because we've been using it for years with "no problems" even though it isn't at full capacity) and I don't know if there's any way to ever bring the health issues to light.
qwop ago
Really great reply. Thanks for posting this. You should read the book "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg. I think it might interest you, since you seem to have sufficient knowledge to appreciate this book.
Although I don't disagree with your technical explanation, I think you may be surprised how harmful this radiation actually is on a subtle epidemiological level. What I mean by this is that if you would just stare at overall cancer rates, you would think not much is going on, but if you start to look at a much bigger picture, you will start to see some very worrying developments. The cancer issue is really a distraction, while the real problems simmer away elsewhere. The book explains most of these issues very well.
I hope you consider reading it, because someone with your high technical knowledge, would be a really good asset to have in the fight against this madness. Of course you choose what you want to do, but just having this extra knowledge in your head, will already allow you to asses the situation with a much wider perspective than now, and perhaps in the future you would be able to post comments with even greater insights.
EvilWizardManannan ago
Thanks for reading my post. I will definitely try to check this book out, as this is a topic I am very interested in. But I wouldn't be surprised to know how harmful all of this really is. I didn't go into detail about the sheer amount of RF pollution we deal with on a daily basis. I would have lost even the 5% of people who bothered to read my TL;DR post. But Wi-Fi APs, smart meters, smart homes, the pervasiveness of Bluetooth, cell phones in our pockets all day long right next to our bodies. I'm sure it's killing us, even if we can't see it.
But I will bookmark this post and check back when I have more time, as I have to go now. But thanks again for reading and understading.