[johnmcd3]

I've often heard people say that we know that these radio waves are 100% safe because the heating effects of non-ionizing radiation at these doses is not a significant risk.

However, the article itself mentions that "novel EHF [medical] therapies" use only slightly higher (and also "non-ionizing") radio frequencies.

Per the Wikipedia article on EHF therapies, this seemingly similar radiation appears to have studied, proven biological effect: "Low intensity (usually 10 mW/cm2 or less) electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency may be used in human medicine for the treatment of diseases. For example, 'A brief, low-intensity MMW exposure can change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors.'[14] This treatment is particularly associated with the range of 40 – 70 GHz.[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency#Medic...

Can someone explain to me how we are so confident 5G is safe, if similar, 40-70 GHz radiation at 10mW/cm2 has been shown to "change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors"?

Why shouldn't there be risk of similar effect at slightly lower frequencies and somewhat lower power?

(To be clear, I believe 5G to be safe with very high probability. But I wish I better knew how to reconcile this information and explain it to others who are much more skeptical.)

[kirrent]

The Wikipedia section should probably be changed to be more critical as discussed on the talk page. EHF therapy has mostly seen study in Eastern Europe where it has been shown to be effective in a range of small studies for treating skin diseases, TB, and cancer(!) however these results have not been replicated elsewhere and the evidence for non-thermal effects from this radiation seems very flimsy.

In a way it reminds me of acupuncture where there are plenty of studies having proved that it works, but as studies are better designed and carried out the effects disappear (for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9084865 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4122198).

edit: itcrowd said it better and first.

[johnmcd3]

The comparison to early acupuncture studies makes sense and is a good one. Thanks.

[itcrowd]

Researchers are quite confident that 5G is safe because besides heating and ionization (see my other post in this thread), there is no known mechanism by which it could be harmful. I know, you cited Wikipedia and that has scientific references [14] and [15] in it. But, what Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that those sources are not quite uncontroversial.

I hate to bring up the same reference again, but here it goes [1].

The following paragraphs cite directly from the article [with emphasis mine]:

A number of researchers, many in Eastern Europe, have expressed interest in the therapeutic application of mmWave radiation. MmWave therapy has been widely used in Eastern Europe since the 1970s [86]. Strikingly high success rates have been reported in the treatment of gastric ulcers, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory sickness, tuberculosis, skin diseases, and even cancer [6], [87]. Typical treatments consist of daily skin exposure of 15–30 min for 5–15 days with PD levels under 10 mW/cm 2 at three common frequencies: 42.2, 53.6, and 61.2 GHz [90]. The mechanisms of mmWave therapy are not known. Nevertheless, some hypotheses have been explored in cellular and molecular levels in recent years as discussed in the “Reported Effects on Gene Expression,” “Reported Effects on Cel lular Proliferation,” and “Reported Effects on Biologi cal Membranes” sections. Despite the large number of patients treated with mmWaves in Eastern Europe, this therapeutic technique has not been accepted by Western physicians and scientists.

It is also important to note that many of the reports summarized in this section have not been independently repeated and confirmed. Historically, some attempts to repeat reported effects have been unsuccessful [8], [91]. While this is not to discount any one of the studies sum- marized here, it is important to recognize that studies involving biological samples inherently produce vari- able results and (depending on the circumstances) may have a number of uncontrolled or uncontrollable vari- ables. For this reason, major decisions on public policy or health care should not typically be made based on reports that were not reproduced independently.

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050

[johnmcd3]

My takeaway from your comment is that studies like [14] and [15] are very likely poorly done (like another comment describes early studies of acupuncture).

In any case, I'd expect that in within a few more years, these sorts of conflicting and controversial results should be further disproven.

Thanks.

[sinak]

The article states that 5G signal doesn't penetrate the body far enough to be able to touch the most important organs. mmWave 5G in the 28 GHz band is significantly attenuated by a window, let alone skin.

10 mw/cm2 for critical tissue doesn't happen. The power levels by the time the signal reaches important body tissue are much, much lower than that.

[jdnenej]

So there is still the potential for skin cancer.

[itcrowd]

No, that is inaccurate. See my other post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375#20454974

[gshulegaard]

This is my go to reference.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...

[mehrdadn]

I don't see anything there about 5G?

[itcrowd]

The linked source doesn't contain the word "5G" but it talks about radiation from 30 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz (30 kHz - 300 GHz). This encompasses 5G by a very large margin. The article makes the following conclusion about this frequency range:

> The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.

(last paragraph of https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...)

[redis_mlc]

1) The money quote from your link is:

"The [WHO] Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans, ..."

2) You're gonna love this ... phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.

So we're a long way from proving phones are safe.

You would even be excused if you thought there was a conspiracy to cover up the risk, because nobody is trying very hard to test them as commonly used - against the ear or in your pocket next to your skin for 16 hours a day.

[sooheon]

> "possibly carcinogenic to humans, ..."

I thought this was scary, until I read pickles, aloe vera, and occasional dry cleaning share the same 2B classification.

[snowwrestler]

If cell phones caused cancer then almost everyone would have cancer, because for over a decade almost everyone has been using a cell phone.

If cell phones caused cancer then we would see increasing rates of cancer in areas most exposed to radiation from cell phones, like skin and head. What we actually see are that the deadliest cancers are lung, colorectal, breast, and pancreatic. With the possible exception of breast cancer, these are all illnesses that occur deep in the body, where they are least likely to be affected by radiation from cell phones.

At worst we can say that if cell phones cause cancer, they do so at a rate that is indistinguishable from the existing incidence of cancer.

[driverdan]

Unfortunately the WHO is overly cautious and not very scientific when it comes to classifying things as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

[the_pwner224]

> phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.

In most modern phones the antenna is at the bottom (or at the very least the iPhone and Samsung Galaxy line - but I think also most other). That's a few inches from the ear.

I was a bit surprised to learn this and now keep my phone right-side-up in my pocket, to keep the EM radiation source away from the balls.

[sooheon]

Apple also tests at 5mm separation (https://www.apple.com/legal/rfexposure/iphone11,2/en/).