[freyr]

> But those mmWaves for 5G are much higher frequency, and they get absorbed by more materials

4G is on the order of 10^9 Hz (1 GHz), and 5G is on the order of 10^10 - 10^11 Hz. Both are non-ionizing radiation, and in the overall scheme of things, relatively close in frequency.

Ionizing radiation causes cell mutation. It starts with UV radiation at 10^16 Hz. X-rays are around 10^18 Hz.

We can't say with certainty that 5G can't possibly have some negative effects, but so far, we have no reason to believe it.

[adrianN]

I'm fairly sure that cell phones are mostly harmless, but the argument that the radiation is not ionizing is a poor one. We know that tissue absorbs some of the radiation, with a fairly strong dependence on the frequency. Biological systems are messy and poorly understood and I find it plausible that slightly wiggling the molecules around disturbs some reaction pathway or other. Given the prevalence of cell phones thoroughly testing this hypothesis is totally warranted imho.

[freyr]

Cellular radiation is tested very thoroughly. So far, the only observed effect is a slight thermal effect at very high received power, as we'd expect.

We can't prove it's completely safe, but nobody yet has been able to demonstrate any compelling evidence that it's unsafe.

[adrianN]

Yeah, those experiments are why I'm pretty sure that cellphones are safe.

[jonhendry18]

The question is, can they have negative effects on insects. Given that under the right conditions a microwave oven can create plasma in a grape, it seems like something to look into before we fry insects, populations of which have already declined significantly.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_...

[grecy]

You know the World Health Organization lists cell phones as "Possibly Causing Cancer in Humans" right?

That's the world's leading authority on human health saying that. I don't care that technically speaking cell phones "can't" cause cancer because they are thought to be non-ionizing.

That's just the same as all the other things in history that have been impossible until they've been done.

[kyrra]

WHO lists many many things as possibly being carcinogens. Remember that the world health organization had coffee listed as a possible carcinogen for 25 years before it was removed in 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-health-organization-to-dr...

[Google234]

From your perspective, I suppose everything is possibly carcinogenic since you don't care about whether technically speaking something "can't" cause cancer. I would give more credibility to the numerous scientific studies that have look at this than the words (that could be applied to literally anything) of some working group associated with The WHO. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electrom...

[grecy]

Give that cancer rates in the developed world are skyrocketing (>50% of people will have caner in my lifetime), but that everything is "safe", yes, I'm more than a little skeptical.

[Google234]

Except for the fact that this isn't true. "Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006‐2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007‐2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21551

Most of the increase has come from our increased life expectancy since getting cancer is very strongly linked with age. Lifestyle choices have also contributed. An aging population and greater detection will result in more cancer cases.

[freyr]

They're not "thought" to be non-ionizing. They are non-ionizing.

Could there be some other mechanism that we don't understand yet and haven't observed yet that could be harmful? Yes, of course. But nobody has been able to provide any evidence yet.