How Microsoft's big bet on 5G may be bad for your health

5G, the next evolution of mobile networks, promises to transform the way we experience technology. 1G brought voice to a mobile platform. 2G introduced text. 3G delivered higher speeds and enabled music and video streaming. 4G or LTE brought up to 10-times higher speeds than 3G. 5G has been described as an evolution of mobile computing due to the many new computing scenarios it is expected to enable such as connected cars, advanced A.I., remote healthcare, advanced augmented (AR) and virtual reality (VR) and much more.

5G networks will have low latency (very responsive with no delay). They will be exponentially faster than current networks and more robust (able to handle more data). And they will be capable of connecting far more devices. Devices will not only connect and communicate with the network, but 5G's robust low latency qualities will allow devices to connect, communicate and "make decisions" between one another (i.e., smart cars) in real time. These capabilities are foundational to Microsoft's "Azure as the world's computer vision, " its intelligent edge and IoT infrastructure and its always connected PC, Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), Mixed Reality and xCloud game streaming strategies.

Still, with all the good 5G promises, there is a cost. Many are claiming that the particular radio frequencies that make 5G great and the thousands of small cell towers required to build out 5G infrastructure pose serious health risks to humans, animals, and the environment. And this outcry isn't coming from technophobes, conspiracy theorists or people on the fringe. Warnings against 5G are erupting from the international scientific community, a reputable source comprised of hundreds of scientists from around the world.

Hundreds of scientists are crying out

In September of 2017, 180 scientists and doctors from around the globe collaborated to begin a petition to stop 5G's deployment due to health risks the technology poses.

5G technology uses a portion of the radio spectrum called millimeter waves. These are very high-frequency waves that give 5G the speed and data capacities that promise to transform the industry. Unlike current and previous spectrum used, however, millimeter waves lose their integrity over long distances, and they don't pass through solid objects very well. Buildings, trees, and even a falling leaf can interfere with millimeter waves. That's a recipe for lousy user experiences.

To compensate for millimeters waves short range and their susceptibility to interference thousands of "small towers" need to be, and are being, implemented throughout municipalities, towns, and neighborhoods. These small towers, which are affixed to lamp posts, traffic lights buildings and more, allow for the near "line of sight" directing of 5G millimeter waves toward users and devices. It is the inundation of these small towers, that will be required approximately every 10-12 houses, and will bath neighborhoods and cities in 5G millimeter waves that concern scientists and citizens. Following are some of the risks they've outlined:

  • Increased cancer risk.
  • Cellular stress.
  • Increase in harmful free radicals.
  • Genetic damage.
  • Structural and functional changes of the reproductive system.
  • Learning and memory deficits.
  • Neurological disorders.
  • Negative impacts on general well-being in humans.
  • Harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

More voices are chiming in

In addition to the 180 scientists in 35 countries who support the aforementioned petition, 230 scientists in 41 countries submitted an appeal based on peer-reviewed published research regarding the harmful effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure or 5G radio frequencies. Following are some of their recommendations:

  • Children and pregnant women to be protected.
  • Guidelines and regulatory standards are strengthened.
  • Manufacturers develop safer technology.
  • The public is fully informed about the potential health risks.
  • Medical professionals are educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy.
  • Governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health.
  • Media disclose experts' financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions.
  • White-zones (radiation-free areas) established.

Given the evidence of health and environmental harm and recommendations from respected sources, why does it seem Microsoft, Qualcomm, carriers, and others are moving forward with 5G plans undeterred?

5G means money, money and more money

The United States is in a race against countries including China, to lead the 5G revolution and the multibillion-dollar economies it will enable. Former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in the above video stresses the billions of dollars 5G will bring the industry, states "we will not wait for standards" and demands that "people stay out of the way of technological advancement."

Microsoft's cloud, which already serves hundreds of businesses and municipalities would get a boost as 5G would increase the capabilities of its intelligent edge, IoT and connected car platforms. It's xCloud game streaming service, with 5Gs low latency and capacity would also benefit. 5G will also enable more personal A.I. particularly as a part of Microsoft's IoT vision where intelligent "computers" would be part of our environment.

Microsoft, Qualcomm, carriers, and governments stand to reap a significant financial windfall with 5Gs implementation. That's why concerns about public and environmental health are not at the forefront of this narrative. The FCC has even made it easier for state governments to steamroll over the will over local governments regarding carriers implementing 5G small cell towers in their towns.

(Un)welcome to the neighborhood

In the above video, a parade of concerned citizens is seen making their case against a state government's plans to implement 5G. These are everyday people from all walks of life. People like you and me.

Anecdotally, I recently received a survey from my carrier asking me if I wanted faster connections, better connections for emergency workers and more. The survey never mentioned 5G but I know my carrier was fishing for "data-driven" support for its 5G agenda.

As for us tech enthusiasts, the story of 5G is usually the one that tells us how fast our next device will be. Or how powerful 5G will make A.I. Or how it will help facilitate amazing real-time AR and VR experiences.

We don't often hear of the practical impacts 5G may have on our health, the health of our families, children, and the environment. But as it is often said, there are two sides to every story. And this is only the beginning.

Jason Ward

Jason L Ward is a columnist at Windows Central. He provides unique big picture analysis of the complex world of Microsoft. Jason takes the small clues and gives you an insightful big picture perspective through storytelling that you won't find *anywhere* else. Seriously, this dude thinks outside the box. Follow him on Twitter at @JLTechWord. He's doing the "write" thing!

  • Finally someone speaks out on the negative impacts of 5G on our health! This isn't being discussed enough.
  • It's not discussed because it's bullshit. It's pseudoscience pushed by nutters. It's up there with climate change denial, genetically-modified foods fearmongering, and antivaxxers. Just look at the videos Jason Ward is citing.
  • Great. Then maybe we can have providers install all their cell towers/antenna's right in your neighborhood since you seem to be ok with it. "It is the inundation of these small towers, that will be required approximately every 10-12 houses" if that's not even a slight concern to you then I don't know what to tell you.
  • You think the people pushing this don't live anywhere near cell towers themselves? You act as if somehow, people who don't believe in this don't want to live near cell towers because they secretly fear the supposed truth, even if they act otherwise.
  • Lets install a big high powered AP at your home and have it service all the clients in your local neighborhood. After all it's only pseudoscience.
  • Well, I'd be a hypocrite if I weren't okay with that, wouldn't I? Let's put it on the roof.
  • After diagnosing some wifi problems last night, I realized that there are at least 14 items in my house broadcasting either 2.5Ghz or 5Ghz at me/my router; 3 phones, 3 tablets, 3 laptops, 3 fire sticks, two wifi TV connections. Plus, of course, the router broadcasting back. Those were the ones 'active' at that time. Looking at Wikipedia, one part of 5G is 600MHz-6GHz, and the other part 'up to 20GHz'. Sign me up for a tower!
  • Where do we sign up? They pay you to put towers on your land, it's extra income.
  • I know right. That might pay the house my itself.
  • Well, most of us will happily buy Chinese wifi routers, who knows what they are doing.
  • This isn't new for 5G it has been happening here in the UK for 3G and 4G. Most cities will have base stations on lamp posts and other suitable structures to infill gaps from the cellular masts. I have had a Cisco 3G pico cell in my home office because the 3G (voice) doesn't penetrate the building. Supplied free by the network it sits there and is connected to my ethernet network and has been provisioned and managed by the network for about 4 or 5 years now. As the 5G wavelength is shorter I would expect these to become even more commonplace.
  • It could be bullshit if it was only a null hypothesis based on some random thoughts. But it isn't. See this link
    And it's a research based on 2G and 3G.
    Beside the radiations what we don't consider are mental & psychological side effects. More Higher speed means more stress which can lead to other problems like heart and coronary diseases, sleep problems, … .
  • Curious if you actually read the Science Daily article or not. It indicates that the levels at which an effect is noticed in animal tissue is at 50 times the maximum allowed power output of a cell phone--which, your cell phone is almost never at. I agree that this article is written with baseless and faulty evidence AT BEST. Although I do agree and I do believe that we should continue to investigate how it affects humans, currently the evidence points to it having no effect beyond examples of confirmation bias (see: seeing something to be true simply because you believe it to be true.)
  • How about actual studies on 5G millimeter waves: No impacts found.
  • As soon as you said climate change denier, you became the very bullshit fool you are spouting off about. Oh yeah, I typed from my fossil fuel made tablet just like you did (or cell phone) Sanctimonious libtard, earth muffin, go worship at the alter of Algore you idiot.
  • Disappointed that psuedoscience is being pushed on these boards.
  • You would think these people know better
  • Exactly, very disappointing to see this article. I mean come on, exactly the same thing was said about old school cell phone towers. Saying that a few scientists (yes one hundred and something is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of scientists in the world) saying that more studies should be done. There is zero evidence, as far as I can see, that any damage is caused by 5g.
  • Hi Dare2Blink thanks for chiming in. You say: I mean come on, exactly the same thing was said about old school cell phone towers. One, the technology and the infrastructure between "old school cell phone towers" and the small cell towers required for 5G infrastructure that will need to be implemented in high density on telephone poles, traffic lights, throughout neighborhoods and more, is something that is highlighted in this article and referenced by scientists, doctors and others, as one of the differentiating factors between "old school towers" and these new small tower. Also the frequency used is different than the lower frequencies of 4G and before. Saying that a few scientists (yes one hundred and something is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of scientists in the world) saying that more studies should be done. Actually, there are more than one hundred scientists and doctors who are raising a red flag. Also your reference to a comparison to the hundreds of scientists that have weighed in to the tens of thousands of scientists who haven't is not the same as your implied hundred who have weighed in but the tens of thousands who haven't are opposed to thier findings. Ther are millions of scientists from a myriad of disciplines who will never weigh in and don't on either side of this argument. Thus their silence on the matter is not a claim that the findings of those who have weighed in is incorrect. Also since you have not seen any evidence, can you articulate a rebuttal to the linked studies and others that discredit the presented evidence. I would assume that you have looked at the presented evidence and have logically processed it and are able to articulate a rebuttal that dismisses it other than "a different technology didn't and structural implementation that is not a prolific" didn't cause harm "from your perspective, though there are those that would dispute even that. My assertion is there are two sides to every story, and a visceral response to an opposing view to the one you hold is likely not the best way to entertain thoughtfully all the presented data.
  • As someone who works in the small cell tower industry. I've been doing these for Verizon for years and years now. I started doing 4G technology back in 2012 and am currently working on implementing 5G which uses much of the same equipment as 4G. We have been doing small cells for years. Some are inside of faux cactuses, and others are rooftop mounted (some visible, others hidden in shrouds), while most are at the street level on light poles / traffic signals in canisters or flush mounted. The fear mongering is crazy, but there will always be people afraid of change especially those outside of the industry. Is there some cellular danger? Yes, but only if you're right at the rad center (radiation center) which is usually about 20' up+ adjacent to the pole while it's operating. This radiation dissipates with distance and spreads from that rad center in an angular fashion. To many, technology always presents some danger, but the impact is usually minimal. Everyone is worried, but usually it's unfounded by the time the technology rolls out. Do these scientists even know what kind of equipment we use? Ericsson / Amphenol / CommScope / Alcatel-Lucent / Nokia? Remember Y2K?
  • Not to defend those who think this is dangerous, but this is in no way comparable to the Y2K scare. The Y2K scare existed precisely because we understood exactly what the problem was and how it could affect computer systems. It's precisely because it was very well understood, even by my grandmother and her dog, and that the sensationalist media covered the issue ad nausea, that every IT manager in the world invested some money to check if they were at risk. In contrast to the RF scare, this was a real problem however. I personally witnessed many an older engineer dig into code that hadn't been touched in decades to get systems ready. That's why at the end, none of our critical systems failed. It's one of those rare cases where sensationalism was actually useful. The RF scare is the opposite. It's not well understood. In the scientific community you'll hear almost nothing but "further study is required". There just isn't much incentive to do so because there is a lot of money behind it. However, there are hundreds of thousands of reports world wide of people living close to power lines suffering from ailments that disappeared after moving away. Of course that's not comparable to cellular technology, but it at least proves the human body isn't entirely unaffected by electromagnetic radiation, even at longer wavelengths. So where is the crossover point? Is it the same for everyone? Might it be harmful despite industry testing? Is in harmless? How should anybody know, considering it's impossible to get the results of long term studies for a technology that hasn't been deployed yet? I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to be too convinced of anything at this point. Anything other than "we can't be sure" isn't really a serious opinion.
  • It's actually pretty well understood. I remember people talking about this decades ago with radar systems and rf antenne
  • Wouldn't a huge increase in the ownership and use of cell phones correlate to a significant increase in the rate or brain cancer if this were the case? Then why did researchers with the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health not find any such correlation when they studied precisely that back in 2010 (using data on cancer incident rates through 2006)? Admittedly cell phone use has continued to increase since then and the article is now a bit dated at this point but this article was literally the first result from a Bing search for "brain cancer rates over time" so someone putting forth even a little effort might find more recent studies. Wouldn't we also see increases in the rate of cancer in upper thighs and buttocks since most people carry their phones in their pockets most of the day? Or maybe even a larger increase in cancer rates in men as compared to women since women are more likely carry their cell phones in their purse, away from their bodies? To those who would point out that cell phone transmit at higher power during use than while idle, how about an increase in cancer in the hands? They also spend a much larger portion of time in pockets than in use so if they signals we are being "bathed in" are so dangerous, wouldn't the time spend with the device in your pocket add up to a significant danger over time? Why haven't technicians for the wireless companies come out in droves to warn the public about the weird cancers they are getting from working in close proximity to the towers on a regular basis? Instead of all of these things, cancer rates throughout the US are down, not up, in recent years and decades:
  • I couldn't agree with this more. With the average mobile device per person cusping 2+, you'd expect that with all that "radiation", there would be a massive increase in cancer rates.
  • But sometimes the other side to the story is that the person pushing it owns shares in a company that is marketing a competing product, or they have a beef with one of the companies involved, or any other kind of thing that gives them an ulterior motive. There are "scientists" warning that Cern could generate a micro black hole, or even open up a portal to another universe. But that doesn't mean that we have to give them equal billing.
  • They were saying this before 2G was a thing. We've been hearing about things like this with overhead power lines and transformers. It's not new. They said it about microwave ovens as well, and fluorescent light fittings. Over the last 50 years, almost everything that's involved electromagnetic waves of any kind has been the subject of fear mongering.
  • @Ramon Castillo1 Care to disapprove it then? Let me ask you question, what is the structure of an atom? Depending on your answer, we will see how knowledgeable you are to call "this" pseudoscience.
  • 5G wavelengths are non-ionizing. Non-ionizing means that there is not enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules, so what exactly are you alluding to? EDIT: Nevermind, just saw your post below.
  • More propaganda, In the article it talks about what is a stake for each country and you don't think that the funding and publishing of the pseudoscience would be outside of the tactics used by politicians to help their country over the others?
  • 5g = non-ionizing radiation = does nothing to you.
  • Sure, if you have regulations governing the levels of energy that can used. Too much and you could end up in rare cases of deformation as not all electrons pass harmlessly through.
    As some knock others off their orbitals (yes, the level of energy is small but in a over saturated environment at verrrrry high energy levels and prolonged exposure will increase the likelihoods of more electrons being wacked out of alignment thus causing deformation - in the cases of cells that leads to mutation i.e cancer).
    Never the less it depends heavily in the elements, compounds and materials used. Some compounds can be extremely lethal, don't forget we are not just talking about direct exposure to these mini towers, we are also talking about the effect these mini towers can have on the surroundings such as insulation, concrete, lead and in some older premises and office blocks - asbestos or other harmful fire retardants that were used in the past.
    It's naive to presume we know everything about the human body, we don't. Heck we don't even know what's in the world's oceans as vast swaths remain undiscovered.
  • We do not know, therefore it is dangerous?
  • We don't know therefore look at the science that is being presented that claims that is is potentially dangerous. If you dispute its validity conduct research and studies to prove that it is safe, don't operate under the presumption it is until proven otherwise (i.e. 🚬 cigarettes).
  • What about the science that claims that it is probably not dangerous? Why do you keep ignoring that one and keep asking for research on the matter as if there were none?
  • I have a question. The 'evidence' and studies that suggests 5G is safe who paid for them? Who sponsored? What/who were these tests conducted on?
  • Some are indeed paid by companies investing in this as you suggested, others by the government, others by other parties. As I said before, the effects of EMR have been studied by decades, it's nothing new. Not to say we shouldn't study them anymore, in fact some fully independent studies addressing 5G specifically can only be a good idea - I'm all for it! All I'm saying is that unlike the way it's being presented here, this is not a novel and unknown topic, it's one that has been researched on rather extensively and there is a fair amount of evidence that there may be no risk to the EMR with relevant intensities and wavelengths. Unfortunately this article misses out on this entirely, presenting us only with one side instead, and with some questionable evidence at that.
  • My son was diagnosed with autism 14 years ago, and as such I witnessed much of the rise of the anti-vax movement. Let me tell you, there was a lot of published research that looked legitimate and relevant to those who were not experts in the field or who were pre-disposed to accept an autism-vaccine link. A lot of it boiled down to p-hacking, but it took pretty robust technical chops to recognize it as such. Even worse, some people who really did have relevant expertise let their anecdotal experiences blind them to how thin the autism-vaccine research really was. A few emotionally invested experts overstated what the research actually showed. They were treated like rock stars for it, which made it even harder for them to make their way back to true objectivity. For everyday moms and dads trying to make sense of changes their kids were going through, it truly felt like they had science on their side. What feels like a scientific movement can easily turn out to be just people telling you what you're prepared to hear. I happen to work at a research institution myself. I've seen a few examples of researchers who let their biases drive them to unjustified conclusions. It happens more than you might suspect. Bottom line is that pseudo-science looks a whole lot like science, and is almost always presented with support from people who look like they know what they're talking about. In addition, scientists are fallible. Individual scientists are often wrong, and whole communities of scientists are sometimes wrong (especially when they are commenting on science outside their field of research - I'll bet very few of the people who signed the petition and appeal actually do research in EM radiation effects). Time tends to correct these errors. Any time you've got a group of scientists bucking the consensus of the broader scientific community, take what they're saying with a grain of salt.
  • "we do not know, therefore we should just cross our fingers and hope for the best?"
  • So get into your microwave oven and turn it on, since it's non-ionizing radiation!
  • 5G Will Weaponize Everything - The Scariest 3.5 Minutes of your Life. Are you kidding? "These are everyday people from all walks of life. People like you and me."
    I have no idea what point this sentence is trying to make. I mean, I think I do, it's just wrong, and quite obviously so, so why?
  • Hi Gatanaui: I agree the youtuber who used the recording of order FCC chairman Tom Wheeler chose an extreme title for Wheeler's address on 5G. It is the highlighted content, however, Wheeler's own words that I am spotlighting in this piece. Wheelers statements focus on the financial gains 5G will bring, he aggressively opposed the establishing of standards based on scientific study to ensure the safety of 5G infrastructure (which will require an order of magnitude higher density potentially harmful radiation due to 5Gs requirement of a large number of of small cell towers within a smaller space compared to tradition towers) and his opposition to anyone raising a red flag. "These are everyday people." That statement refers to the fact that it is not just members of the scientific community that have concerns, who can feel distant or removed from readers, but everyday day, from various walks of life, like the readers here, who have concerns as well. If you look at the flow of the piece, I open with the perspective of the industry players and techies, like us, who are or have been anticipating (and in my case even writing about) the exciting benefits of 5G. Something we can all identify with here. I then, move to a view from the scientific community that highlights concerns we normally don't entertain here. I then talk about the motivations of the industry, the billions of dollars player spoke Qualcomm who ruels the current mobile architecture and has laid much of the 5G tech as well. I then bring the concern to the steps of ordinary everyday people through the eyes of ordinary everday people. I encourage everyone whether you agree or disagree, not to have a visceral response simply because the content does not run congruos to your long held beliefs. Look at the information, read the linked studies and data and simply think about what's presented. There's always twonside to a story. Weigh the information. And give it some thoughtful attention and whatever side you call on at least it was with thoughtful attention to twonside ofnl a story and not just the popular narrative we entertain on tech sites.
  • Apparent scientific support is regularly manufactured for nutter conspiracy theories. This is one of them. Climate change denial, cell phone radiation causing cancer, GMO food health concerns, vaccinations causing autism - all have petitions and lists of "experts" backing them up. This is no different. You are not presenting two sides of a story, both with equal validity. You are a fearmonger perpetuating bad science and a conspiracy theory.
  • The entire opening is one side to the story. I talk about the benefits that it will bring. Since you feel that what these scientists and doctors are presenting is false, provide equally peer reviewed studies that deny that 5G infrastructure and radio waves will not cause harm. Saying that this is false isn't the same as presenting peer reviewed counter-evidence. So I invite you to present your opposing evidence, rather than saying this is fear mongering and lets have a discussion. That's, after, all what those who are convinced that this technology will cause harm, according to my research, want. Prove this presented evidence is wrong and present counter evidence. The burden of proof, that it wont do harm is on those who want to implement it without first doing the research to support it does no harm, like form FCC Chair Tom Wheeler, eho wanted to move forward without standards do to the financial gain and staying ahead of the competition. If in fact, it is not harmful, do the studies, prove its harmless, then moving forward sounds like the fairest and even the wisest way to go to win public support.
  • "The entire opening is one side to the story."
    Not the side that Andrew G1 was referring to. "Since you feel that what these scientists and doctors are presenting is false, provide equally peer reviewed studies that deny that 5G infrastructure and radio waves will not cause harm."
    Sorry, but that's not how this works. There may never be a study denying that because it is not something that you can every fully and truly deny. However, there are numerous studies that have tried to prove harming effects of certain relevant types of radiation and have failed to show anything. Of course none of them is going to close with "thus we have proven that there is no danger to 5G". Again, that's not how it works so what you want here to counter your points may not be something you are going to get. Anyway, to give you something at all, here you go. I realize it's not a lot but it's what I could find quickly. I'd like to add one more thing, which is that electromagnetic waves become ionizing at the wavelength of ultraviolet light - 5G is several orders of magnitude away from even infrared light. This on its own is not enough to prove a lack of harm but it's ionizing radiation that can cause cancer. The effects of non-ionizing radiation are of thermal nature. So far there is no evidence that non-ionizing radiation could cause cancer: All this is not to say that there is no further research needed, of course.
  • Your closing statement, All this is not to say that there is no further research needed, of course. is the most important. Because of the evidence that has been presented that this technology can potentially cause harm, would it not be prudent to do the research to prove that it does not cause harm before hundreds of thousands of 5g small towers are placed throughout residential neighborhoods, communities and cities and before billions of dollars a spent on this infrastructure that will saturate cities and towns with persistent 5G radio waves in close and dense proximity continually. I realize the way the world does business is to do the minimal required to get business agendas moving. Their motivations are, if we don't have to prove it doesn't harm before we implement it then we won't. Ex FCC chairman Tom Wheeler expressed that sentiment in the embedded video when he refused to establish standards, and stressed the financial gain it would bring. Unfortunately as with cigarettes, certain chemicals we've used in foods, aspestos and other things, we and businesses do what's convienient, easy and profitable first, then after the harm is done, we try to, unsuccessfully or with great difficulty try to roll back the damage (anti-smoking campaigns, removing asbestos from buildings, pollution from our vehicles, etc). The wisest and safest thing to do, even if there wasn't a public outcry and resistance from the scientific community, would be to simply do the research and studies first to irrefutably prove that the unprecedented levels of continual radiation we will be exposed to in our communities and residential areas will do no harm. It's practical, responsible and would help to gain public support if the studies prove that it will indeed be harmless. But the response by some here echos the response by many proponents which isn't a presentation of data that says the levels of radiation we will be exposed to with 5G will be safe, I'm seeing primarily just a visceral classification of the presented data as insufficient (just because) with no rebuttal evidence, and some claims of disappointment that this was presented here, but again no opposing evidence. The claims by some that the data the scientists present is pseudoscience, is thrown out there by several commenters so far, but they present thier position in the actual "spirt" of pseudoscience: no evidence, no opposing proof, just I disagree therefore its wrong. At least be intellectually consistent and intellectually honest in what are supposedly your rebuttals. If you believe this is pseudoscience, present a scientifically supported evidence-based rebuttal that stating that: The levels of radiation we will be exposed to through continual broadcasting of 5G millimeter waves as a result of hundreds of thousands of small cell towers in our neighborhoods, outside our homes and in our communities will not cause any health or environmental harm.
  • You're acting like all this is being deployed with no idea at all about the effects it may have on humans. This is not a new topic and there has been plenty of research on effects of electromagnetic waves of varying intensities and varying wavelengths on humans. There has been no concluding study that the levels of radiation we expose ourselves to is absolutely safe because in fact there may never be one. What you're asking for is almost impossible. This said, of course we should do the best we can and as much as is sensible. Maybe regarding 5G specifically we are indeed not at that point yet. But so far there has been no safe evidence that there is harm in the wavelengths we expose ourselves to (at least not of the kind you mention) and will expose ourselves to with 5G. Saying there are potential risks we cannot exclude is not the same as evidence that the potential damage is real, so please stop saying that. Also, please stop quoting that video about Tom Wheeler, it's trash, constantly cutting out what he says (I wonder why?) and containing false information (5G wavelengths are NOT ionizing!). That's intellectually dishonest if anything is. "but they present thier position in the actual "spirt" of pseudoscience: no evidence, no opposing proof, just I disagree therefore its wrong."
    That is not the spirit of pseudoscience, the spirit of pseudoscience is omitting certain facts, twisting certain other facts and presenting them in a manner that goes counter to actual scientific practice and that shape a certain narrative. I'd say that the people talking about pseudoscience are criticizing that about the "evidence" you chose to share and also "evidence" they may have already read elsewhere. But yes, I agree it would be better if more commenters actually tried to refute you with real evidence.
  • Gatanui I agree completely, except I would go further than that: Repeated, rigorous non-observation is very, very close to proof of non-existence. Many high-quality studies in many contexts all pointing at a very small effect or no effect (and the size of the effect is also very important, remember) are very good evidence that there is, in fact, no effect. Take breast cancer screenings. Governments around the world now advise younger women to not bother with self-examination and to not get regular mammograms. That's because after lots of data and good studies, the scientists found there's no reason for younger women to do these things - all it does is increase anxiety, it doesn't help fight breast cancer. It's philosophically, technically true that we can't "prove" that 30-year-olds getting mammograms is a good idea in some way shape or form, but it's besides the point - clearly there's no detectable benefit. And a detectable benefit (just like a detectable harm) is all that matters.
  • Yes, it's very close (as close as we can get in many cases, in fact), but it's not definite, which sounds like what Jason may be asking for (he did talk about irrefutable proof after all). The thing is that without definite evidence you will always get someone interjecting. Heck, you even get that when there IS definite evidence. I agree with what you say here, though.
  • "So I invite you to present your opposing evidence." Actually. that was your job. You presented the Big Bad Corporations as the only people who are for 5G, then cited two petitions (that first one isn't 180 scientists and doctors - did you even look at who signed it?) and claimed that represented the scientific point of view. Then you say the big bad corporations are biased, because of money. Jill Stein could not have done better. Scientific controversies aren't scientists vs moneyed interests. It's scientists vs. scientists. You didn't even try to grapple with the scientific issues - you just pushed a conspiracy theory and said "there are two sides to every story" at the end, as if that absolves you.
  • "It's my job"...It not my job to oppose myself. You take an opposing stance, with no opposing evidence. If you are taking an opposing stance it should be with opposing evidence.
  • Blah, blah, libtard, greenie blah.
  • You have the burden of proof backwards. It is up to those making the claims (in this case, that 5G/LTE/WiFi is harmful) to provide the proof to those claims. As an example, I could claim that you're receiving financial incentive from these quack sites to publish this editorial (to be absolutely clear, I am _not_ claiming or even suggesting you are, just using an example). The burden of proof would not then be on you to prove otherwise, but for me to substantiate my claims.
    Again, to be perfectly clear, I am not claiming or even suggesting the above; just using simple example that doesn't devolve into silliness such as "wardrobes cause cancer" or somesuch. A bigger issue with this editorial is that none of your linked sources are to credible sites, but rather quack YouTube videos or sites that have a vested interest in convincing people that EMF is harmful - not only pushing the idea that EMF is harmful, but selling products and remedies to "protect" you from it (which you can guarantee won't actually work). If you have any actual conclusive evidence that 5G is harmful, why not link directly to them? And I mean conclusive evidence, not reports that find correlation (insert "Cancer causes celltowers" XKCD comic here). While the NTP study that EHTrust refers to did find that high levels of radio frequency radiation caused tumours in male rats, they also note that the results can't be directly applied to humans:
    "The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans for two key reasons: • The exposure levels and durations were greater than what people may receive from cell phones. • The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cell phone in their pocket or next to their head."
    Not only that, but the results are specific to 2G and 3G, and don't apply to 4G, 5G, or even WiFi. The other actual site you link to references the World Health Organisation, and how WHO lists EMF as a "possible human carcinogen (Group 2B)". Sounds scary, until you dig deeper and see that the requirements for this group is "limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." The list includes things like carbon nanotubes, and styrene. The WHO/IARC 2B list is a common tactic by these sorts of sites, by appealing to fear and emotion rather than any sort of actual scientific credibility. I'm not sure whether this editorial is a result of a need for controversial articles (generating clicks and revenue... I understand the occasional need for it), or lazy/****** journalism. But it's absolutely shameful to see you and Windows Central devolving to giving this sort of quackery any sort of credence.
  • Actually, there is one thing where I'm with Jason on this, which is that I think that the burden of proof lies indeed with the companies deploying 5G, not irrefutable proof that it is safe because that is impossible but sufficient scientific evidence for it (of course the question of what is sufficient is also up for debate). The thing is that Jason somehow keeps pretending that said evidence does not exist while it does. Sure, we can do more research, I'm down with that, but evidence already exists plentiful. The effects of electromagnetic radiation have been studied for decades. Honestly, I think Jason is just freaked out by this topic and afraid and wants to spread awareness. I don't blame him for that per se but I also find the quality of this article disappointing. Not what I'm used to on this portal, which I generally find of mostly rather good quality.
  • You have the burden of proof backwards. It is up to those making the claims (in this case, that 5G/LTE/WiFi is harmful) to provide the proof to those claims. Actually the burden of proof, that is is safe, is on those that are implementing the 5G infrastructure that may put people in harms way. I think the arguments that research not sponsored (or supported) by the corporations or other entities with vested interested in favorable results should be considered. I think the discussion needs to be had, and that the voices in opposition heard as loudly as the multibillion dollar companies and state governments he stand to reap benefits of 5G implementation. Rather than individuals coming off so aggressively here. Do some thinking ans some digging, see what the positions are on both sides, the arguments being made, the forces pushing it through, the voices raised in resistance, the response of local governments, the response of industry leaders and give the issue a thoughtful consideration rather than a kneejerk response based on your current level of knowledge. A discussion is always good to have.
  • Both sides, sounds great. Why don't you start by showing some studies suggesting there is no risk? Maybe that's the reason companies like Microsoft are not concerned.
    What you chose to present is not "the other side" that is relevant here. "I think the arguments that research not sponsored (or supported) by the corporations or other entities with vested interested in favorable results should be considered." Yes, sounds good. Didn't know we were saying otherwise, though. Maybe we shouldn't consider the first video then, since has a vested interest in making you believe the EMF paint it sells is necessary.
  • Yes, sounds good. Didn't know we were saying otherwise, though. Maybe we shouldn't consider the first video then, since has a vested interest in making you believe the EMF paint it sells is necessary. Yes altermedicine does have a particular perspective. But the first video in the piece that you are referencing was not produced by them. It is a report by the CBS owned KPIX-TV channel 5. I presume altermedicine, saw the broadcast and places it on its own youtube channel. The video with ex FCC chairman Tom Wheeler too, was also broadcast independent of the YouTube who grabbed the televised clips and put his admittedly exaggerated title on the piece. But it too simply reflects what wheeler says from his position, his own words for all to hear pushing against ensuring there are standards before pushing the tech and pushing the importance of the money to be had. The third video is a CNN video that breaks down what 5G is and the woman also raises the concerns as part of her narrative about the benefits. The last video is an publically broadcast, public forum showing the battle state governments, in collusion with carriers are having with residents and local governments. Also, my position with this piece was to show what I laid out in the beginning was the goal. And what is laid out in the intro sentence and the article summary. That being there is a push for 5G and there are many benefits (many of which I have written about as woven into Microsoft's intelligent edge, cloud, IoT and ACPC plans and its Qualcomm partnership). The goal was working within that context and backdrop of the known benefits and excitement kn the tech industry and the presumed default assumption of the technologies safety. That's what's dominating most of the coverage. This piece was meant to acknowledge all that I just said but to also present that there is another narrative along side thr evolution of this tech that needs to be considered. To dismiss that narrative out of hand, I believe would be irresponsible.
  • The default position is that it is safe, because it's what the understanding of the scientific principles behind radio frequency radiation and cellular biology indicate, along with at least a century of human use of it. The claim is challenging that position, so the burden of proof is on those making the claim. You talk about vested interests of those implementing and championing 5G, and of having a balanced argument/story, yet I don't see you even acknowledging the vested interests of those against it, in even the sources you linked in the article. The reason people might seem aggressive is because the places and people pushing against 5G (or any other wireless/radio technology) are linked at a fundamental level (lack of understanding, or in some cases complete misrepresentation, of the science) to anti-vaxxers and their kind, and push their own pseudoscience agenda and remedies. Do some digging yourself and look into why these people might be peddling the claims that radio frequencies are harmful. Anything perceived as aggression or a kneejerk reaction comes from disdain for these types of people who are unwittingly a danger to society.
  • Algore hath spoken.
  • The fact that "normal people" have some concerns means absolutely nothing, sorry. It's also normal people who believe that vaccines cause autism or that the earth is flat. Is that supposed to give it any credence?
    What counts is scientific evidence. From what I know, and I've seen a bit of research in the past, there is no actual evidence (so far!) that non-ionized radiation causes the damage described. Yes, I know all those risks have been outlined, but there is a big difference between saying "5G is known to probably cause these" and "we feel there is not enough evidence to be confident that 5G couldn't cause these, so more research than there has been so far is warranted". You're wording it as if it were the former. This said, it is absolutely impossible to ever proof beyond a doubt that 5G or any other kind of non-ionizing radiation is not harmful. There will always be room for doubt. The question is, is the doubt reasonable. Perhaps at this point for 5G it is. But there not being certainty does not mean that all the risks you described are realistic or proven. By the way, all the people pushing for 5G would be just as surrounded by it as everyone else, if not more. You'd think if they found any hard evidence that they may harm their health and that of everyone around them they'd pause, money to be made notwithstanding. Yes, I realize this is not the most convincing argument, and it's not supposed to be, just a thought. "I encourage everyone whether you agree or disagree, not to have a visceral response simply because the content does not run congruos to your long held beliefs. Look at the information, read the linked studies and data and simply think about what's presented."
    I agree with this per se but that's not what you did, you just posted some videos (partly looking very unprofessional). Where is the other side? Where are the scientific sources stating that there is no evidence so far that 5G is harmful? Hard to "weigh the information" as you say when you only present part of it.
  • I've presented the two sides that are most prominently in view: The many benefits the carriers, Qualcomm and tech company's are pushing that 5G will bring to the table. The narrative we often hear. And perspective that exists alonsid that context, these doctors and scientists, and yes normal people who are impacted in their communities and who are acting on a very practical level attempting to oppose a states implementation of 5G infrastructure. It puts a face on and makes what may seem like an abstract and removed idea by many, it makes visible a reality of what is happening in real communities right now. As the industry players are trying to push the tech, concerned citizens backed by scientific evidence , (that of course you dispute) are standing against it and pleading that small cell towers not put pu in their neighborhoods, outside their homes, etc. and are asking that research be done to prove that the 5G infrastucture wont do harm, and not work under the assumption as with cigarettes years a go, that it won't do harm. And yes, of course, people who are pushing 5G would be surrounded it by it as well. You're right. But they would also be the beneficiaries of a billion dollar industry. People are willing to take all types of risks particularly if they are confident of the benefits it will bring them, and not as convinced about those risks, or they may even down play them motivated by the financial gain they are bound to receive.
  • Presenting tangible benefits vs scare-mongering fears is not presenting two sides to the story. Presenting two sides would be to show the scientific reality behind those claims of harm and why they are likely to be untrue, regardless of the benefits.
  • Noirsoft...articulate an evidenced based well articulated opposing argument. Emotionally-laden claims of fear-mongering which this is not, is not a rebuttal. It's just a disagreement.
  • The sources you've put in the article for the health effects of 5G (or any other radio tech) are all fear-mongering and not evidence based - anecdotal psychosomatic evidence (see electrosensitivity), and correlation, or misrepresented studies and reports (like the NTP study, which clearly indicates the results don't apply to humans, or the WHO/IARC classification).
  • That's super easy: We have studied the effects of this type of radiation for decades and have never found definitive evidence of harm, and those who oppose the new tech have never been able to show evidence of harm beyond mere speculation. That is the "other side" which you failed to show.
  • Thanks for that input. And opposing views are welcome. What is often missing in the 5G narrative is this side of the story, those in opposition who due to thier concerns about health and environmental impacts. I've written multiple pieces where I've talked about Qulacomms role in building this next generation 5G infrastructure which is an expansion of the mobile infrastructure it currently dominates. I've also written about how it will benefit Microsofts, cloud, intelligent edge, AI, connected car and other strategies. The prevailing assumption being that the technology is safe. Alongside that narrative I chose to now write about a portion of the narrative that is happening parallel to the rollout, all of the exciting articles about 5Gs benefits, ads from carriers, and videos and more from Qualcomm. Now, I acknowledge that studies have been done on 2G, 3G 4G radiation in the past. Many of those have been industry sponsored and paid for. Some have not. Some report no harm, which would be expected from industry sponsored studies. (Though not all those with those results are industry sponsored). While others suggest that, yes, there are harmful effects from this radiation. Let's continue the conversation: Can you share the study that shows that 5G radiation as part of small cell towers in residential areas and implemented throughout towns and cities at an unprecedented level will not cause harm? I know former FCC chair Tom Wheeler didn't want to wait for research-based standards before rolling 5G out (he was quite emphatic about that in the above video). So he knew, even acknowledged, more could be done but chose to go the route that ensured billions of dollars for corporations sooner than later as he highlights in his speech above. This is one junction where the contention lies for many of those who are concerned. There are a lot of concerned people and scientists, in towns, cities and countries as they feel states and corporations are ignoring thier concerns. Wouldn't showing concern for those who are concerned, acknowledging and respecting thier perspective of the data and doing the research (that Wheeler chose to forego) to either confirm or refute thier views which would benefit everyone either way be the best route for all?
  • As I said above, there has already been plenty of research on the effect of electromagnetic radiation of varying intensities and wavelengths on humans. That is the side you have omitted and that is relevant here, not what the technical benefits may be. I'll accept your last paragraph because I concede I was making a weak point there.
  • "It is the inundation of these small towers, that will be required approximately every 10-12 houses" Wow, is that true? I didn't know that. Don't know if that's a health risk, but it's interesting.
  • People in rural areas are going to get screwed. The great divide grows.
  • The high density of towers is required because higher wavelength radiation cannot pass objects as easily. However, in a rural area, this will be much less of a problem. One of the explicit goals of 5G deployment is expanding to rural areas as well. Of course, whether that happens and how far remains to be seen.
  • The higher density of towers is also because the the high-frequency millimemter waves don't travel very far. So you need more towers in a smaller area to convey the data. It's not just because of their inability to pass through objects. So even in rural areas you'll need more a lot of towers.
  • It's all bogus pseudoscience apparently.... nothing to be worried about. EMR doesn't exist. It's all in our heads. We are paranoid.....
  • Nobody is arguing that EMR doesn't exist, so what point are you trying to make?
  • That people are brushing it off like it's a joke. It's all 'pseudoscience'. But others out there have a legit right to be concerned.
  • I can only speak for myself but I'm not disputing anyone's right to be concerned about anything. That doesn't mean I cannot address those concerns, though.
  • You're free to be concerned. Just as Jenny McCarthy is free to be concerned about vaccinations. But freedom doesn't make your concerns legitimate. They're not.
  • This is the latest solution to the last mile problem. But more like the last 100 yard problems. It is easy to string a cable along a line of telephone poles/power poles. But try stringing a line from the pole to your house. So, you string the wire along the pole, attach a 5G cell tower every 200 yards and now anyone within 100 yards of a tower will get good reception. Rural areas may benefit since one 5G cell tower may be able to service multiple homes at a lower cost than current solutions. I know my Mom (living away from any decent cell tower location and no cable provider) has a millimeter antenna on her house that looks at a distant (4 miles) hilltop to receive a pretty good internet connection.
  • Jason you are the man, thank you for covering such topics and educating me on the subject.
  • Thanks Banele. My pleasure😉👍🏿
  • WTF, this is pseudoscience. What is wrong with you? "Concerns about public and environmental health are not at the forefront of the narrative" for the same reason autism isn't at the forefront of the narrative about vaccination - it's pseudoscience.
  • Exactly. Nothing to see here folks
  • Do you know how "alternative-medicine" that's been tested and proved is called? It's simply called "medicine".
    A quick visit to shows it's just a conspiracy theory repository for articles about the so-called electrosensitivity some people claim to experience. I am not surprised they're selling a magical paint that can shield your whole house from all electromagnetic fields for the low price of £ 250.00 / 5 liters.
    If anyone is interested, I'm selling tin foil hats for just $ 50 / piece, and they protect you from electromagnetism just as well as covering your whole house with that paint does, a real bargain ! I agree we need to verify the effects of these radiations, but these sources hardly represent a consensus of "the international scientific community" as the alternative-editorial claims.
  • I agree, the effect of radiations need to be validated however prolonged exposure to non ionising radiation at very high energy levels in a overly saturated environment can be detrimental depending on the source causing the radiation. Also we need to how they will affect the surrounding buildings and how will the waves affect atomic compositions of building materials which will inevitably travel into the and through living cells. In my opinion hardly no one is talking about the affects of material composition. Non ionising radiation is generally perceived as harmless however that majorly depends on the source, energy levels, exposure and saturation levels. For example, sound waves are practically harmless but with higher decibles you have alot more energy and thus for example a crystal class shutters or enough to make your heart skip a beat due to the vibrational effect on surrounding materials.
  • Non-ionizing means that there is not enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules, so what exactly are you alluding to? EDIT: Just saw that you talked about this further above.
  • You can't beat a good Warditorial! 😎😎😎
  • Gotta agree this smacks of fear-mongering. In addition, I admit I'm disappointed that this site would post an article like this, while not discussing (as far as I could see, though I'm open to being wrong) the very real security concerns about AI and IoT. If you'd like info on the latter, I found this talk enlightening, and rather funny!
  • Without proof, is bullshit paranoia which in the end, will Only make worse the acces for the people with low income.
  • For those interested to learn more on the subject, Vox did a pretty comprehensive analysis of Cell phone radiation earlier this year (though admittedly they focused more on the cell-phone side of the equation instead of the towers):
  • but who says MS is betting big on 5G, just coz we dont see them doing much now, MS apologists have caught on 5G to justify MS's disinterest.
  • 5G =global warming due to unprecedented high CO2 on earth but at the level of human being. In the life time of earth, the last 150 years of 4.5 billions has an irreversible impact on earth climate. Likewise, in the history of evolution of all life on earth including humanoid sapiens, the dawn of 5 G will challenge in unprecedented way how life would cope and adapt in time before the natural health defence mechanism evolved over millions of years breakdown.
  • Scientific studies based on average population will not reveal significantly how a small minority will react adversely to 5G. If the studies were done with enriched population that are sensitive to 5G, I should be able to develop apps that can help u predict the reduced life span on your love ones due to damages accumulated by prolonged exposure. Unlike air pollution, u could close your windows or wear masks, for 5G to work at a financial profitable level, we must be surrounded and "cooked" 24x7 in 5G waves.
  • Love your YouTube citations, Jason. Great journalism all around. Anyone in a suit is an expert, amirite? Really, you should be ashamed for pushing this crap. You make Glenn Beck almost sound reasonable.
  • Actually the citation is from former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, not "anyone in a suit", giving his speech regarding 5G. He was someone who had a profound level of authority and influence in positioning policy to either open the door for corporations to proceed unfettered or establish some level of checks and balances to influence studies and research to ensure that the levels of radiation 5G will expose us to, (which is unlike what we have been exposed to to date) will not cause harm. He chose to use his position to state that we would not wait for standards, but talked about how important the tens of billions of dollars the industry and business would gain. Now his approach could have been one of cautious progression, and could have sought to produce standards, but from his official position he pushed through influenced by the financial gain that he freely articulated himself on the national stage.
  • Cautious progression, with the caution due to videos from and Death Angel? Give me a break. Your credibility is gone.
  • Cautious progression, with the caution due to videos from and Death Angel? Give me a break. Your credibility is gone. As I shared above Andrew, though Altmedicine placed that first video on thier site it is clearly a video from CBS owned property KPIX-TV channel 5, doing thier own report. Also, it is clear that the one reposted by death angel is a repost of a televised recording of former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. It is Wheeler's own narrative about pushing forward with 5G without creating standards and his focus on the billions to be gained for businesses that is the focus of the video; that again is a repost of a televised speech by Wheeler. So regardless of who "reposted" those videos they exist independent of the two sites I happened to pull them from. One was broadcast from a CBS owned property the other was also televised as Wheeler gave a speech on 5G. So no, Andrew the videos are not from or Death Angel. You certainly can see the channel 5 watermark in the first video, and that it is a news story, right? And I'm sure you realize ex FCC chairman's Tom Wheeler's speech on 5G in the second video was not orchestrated and filmed by Death Angel. Right? The videos are not from Alternedicine and Death Angel. 😉 Finally, proceeding with cautious progression is not advised based only on the two videos that you incorrectly referenced to have originated at a particular source. It is the cumulative evidence presented from various sources, and common sense, that says if there is potential danger, proceed with diligence and care, considering the data, providing (tests/research) all necessary precautions to ensure public and environmental safety in an environment that will be saturated with unprecedented levels of EMF radiation via thousand of small cell towers continuously broadcasting in close proximity to homes and throughout towns and cities.
  • Tom Wheeler is a political hack. His idea of government service is imposing laws written in 1930 and imposing it on a 21st-century industry.
  • I don't know the ins and outs of the 5G frequencies, but throughout history things have been declared safe, have turned out to be rather deadly, Asbestos, DDT and many others? So clearly it's good to question whether being bombarded with yet another form of RF radiation is a good idea or not, especially if those who are telling us it's safe are also the ones who stand to gain the most.
  • Yes, of course it's good and necessary to question it but that does not mean that anything that does so automatically becomes good and sensible.
  • I can't find much research claiming this radiation to be safe. There are however decades worth of research unable to prove any harmfull effects. See the difference? Asbestos and DDT had some negative effects, proven by scientists, and are forbidden in many countries. Looking back one could say more research could have been done, sure. But you wount be able to catch everything up front. Should we stop all progress just in case?
  • The big problem with cellphone science
    In many areas of health research, the randomized controlled trial is considered the gold standard of evidence. Researchers take test subjects and randomly assign them to one of two groups. One group gets a treatment; the other gets a placebo. The idea is that because people were randomly assigned, the only real difference between the groups (on average) is the treatment. So if there’s a difference in outcomes, it’s fair to say that the treatment was probably the cause. That’s why randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often yield fairly clear answers about the effectiveness of treatments compared to other study designs. (Fun fact: Scottish doctor James Lind, a clinical trial pioneer, figured out that citrus fruits seemed to have an effect on scurvy using one of the earliest RCTs.) RCTs can also be used to study whether something, like cellphone radiation, can cause disease. Unfortunately, however, we’ll probably never have an RCT on cellphones and cancer in humans. It’d be too difficult and too expensive to randomly assign particular levels of cellphone use to thousands of people and have them stick with those plans for enough time (we’re talking at least five years) to figure out whether certain types of phones or phone use patterns cause cancer to develop. That’s not to mention the fact it’d be nearly impossible to find a group of people willing to not use cellphones and then make sure they actually stick to their promise. But without RCTs, we can’t establish that cellphones cause cancer or prove that they don’t. Instead, we have to rely on “observational” data, tracking people’s real-world cellphone use and their disease incidence. Studies using observational data tend to be weaker, messier, and less clear-cut than experimental studies like RCTs. They can only tell us about associations between phenomena, not whether one thing caused another to happen. So that opens up a lot of the ambiguity we’re going to delve into next.
  • No but we should do the necessary research that looks specifically at the impact of the levels of continual, long-term 5G millimeter radiation on humans and the environment.
  • I appreciate you writing this article. I'm sure these same people claiming 'pseudoscience' also thought at some point that CTE was bogus science as well.
  • Deployment of 5GHz will be in the 3.5Ghz range +/- 0.2Ghz. This is within the range of 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz currently used in WiFi. You don't need to study specifically at that frequency because harmonics are generated with other frequencies. You just need to study a RANGE of frequency, of which there are no concrete evidence of causal increase in the incidence of most types of cancer by cell towers in the microwave range. To be able to heat something, like your tuna sandwich, you need 2.45ghz (a harmonics of the resonance frequency of water) directly pointing at the sandwich using an 800W magnetron which produces a much higher output in a confine space (like a machinegun) than a 500W antenna radiating in all direction, like a BB gun.
  • Also note the difference between cell tower, which are relatively far from you vs a cellphone which is almost always near you! Calling on a 2G phone definitely gives you more radiation to your skull than a cell tower many meters from you. 3G and 4G phones emits even less power due to better frequency modulation schemes and closer and more numerous towers.
  • Asbestos has more to do with smoking and working in an industrial environment than asbestos itself. There is little evidence DDT causing any health problems in humans. DDT does thin eggshells, which prevent eggs to allow a bird to grow enough to hatch. Millions and now billions of people have been exposed to cell phone radiation for 20 years. Has there been a huge increase in cancer? No.
  • @ddn123 - Not bashing you or your response in any way, but in the past 25+ years since cellular and wireless technologies have been introduced to the general public, there has been a major increase in multiple types of cancers ranging from common cancers to extremely rare cancers. Whether or not the two are directly linked has not been proven is yet to be declared, but the timelines of the increases of the two are VERY coincidentally paralleled.
  • Pharma used to loose billions each year by gambling on clinical studies designed based on average population. I see similar analogy to people versus tobacco industry. In 30 years time, we will have enough data enriched over hundreds of average population studies to trigger people versus 5G industry. We now have smoke free environment every where. How are we going to design 5G free environment at work and home?
  • When we're all dead from excessive doses of millimetre wave radiation, guess then the industry will wake up and say, "oh, hey, guess this wasn't such a good idea after all" when their anticipated billions in profits fail to materialize...because they've fried all their customers. :/ In the meantime, on they will go to implement it, because no one likes to stand still and do nothing.
  • To see this article (sorry, editorial) on Windows Central is extremely disappointing. None of your linked sources are to credible sites, but rather quack YouTube videos or sites that have a vested interest in convincing people that EMF is harmful - not only pushing the idea that EMF is harmful, but selling products and remedies to "protect" you from it (which you can guarantee won't actually work). If you have any actual conclusive evidence that 5G is harmful, why not link directly to them? And I mean conclusive evidence, not reports that find correlation (insert "Cancer causes celltowers" XKCD comic here) or misrepresent the findings. While the NTP study that EHTrust refers to did find that high levels of radio frequency radiation caused tumours in male rats, they also note that the results can't be directly applied to humans:
    "The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans for two key reasons: • The exposure levels and durations were greater than what people may receive from cell phones. • The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cell phone in their pocket or next to their head."
    Not only that, but the results are specific to 2G and 3G, and don't apply to 4G, 5G, or even WiFi. The other actual site you link to references the World Health Organisation, and how WHO lists EMF as a "possible human carcinogen (Group 2B)". Sounds scary, until you dig deeper and see that the requirements for this group is "limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." The list includes things like carbon nanotubes, and styrene. The WHO/IARC 2B list is a common tactic by these sorts of sites, by appealing to fear and emotion rather than any sort of actual scientific credibility. I'm not sure whether this editorial is a result of a need for controversial articles (generating clicks and revenue... I understand the occasional need for it), or lazy/****** journalism. But it's absolutely shameful to see you and Windows Central devolving to giving this sort of quackery any sort of credence.
  • I usually find your arthicles to be informative and well tought trough. This time you took the scare bait a little to easy. I can see others explaining how research on potential harmfull radiation have been done for decades allready, and also pointing out the facts that not proven to be safe is not the same as likely to be harmfull. From the available research one can conclude that for the time being, this is not harmfull. Yes, you should absolutely tell people about the conserns, they are real conserns. But you should not write an arthicle that also fuels the concerns in others, your readers, by leaving out important pieces of the pussle. It is easy to read this information not only as concerns, but fact and real proven threats.
  • Ohhh, you mean just like everybody climed that 4G would, and 3G before it, and 2G/EDGE GPRS before it, and so on and so on... Show us the proof, publish the paper, or be known as scaremongering pseudo-scientific bullshitters.
  • It takes courage to write this article. The fact that we have intelligent comments from both sides justify why I will keep coming back to this forum to learn from diverse views to shape my belief system. Great jobs to all who put in extra effort to share your views.
  • Do you say this on Jenny McCarthy editorials? Glenn Beck videos?
  • these are the same morons that think CO2 is killing the planet. Ignore and they'll eventually go away.
  • No. don't ignore them. You must demonstrate to the mindless public the great advantages better mobile communication. Better first responder services. Better transportation services. Better health services. The real problem is municipalities demanding a fee of $1000 or more per cell location, even though the municipality does not own the power poles where these systems are installed.
  • i still remember those brick cellphones from 1996 that would heat your brain after about 5 minutes of holding them to your head.
  • Is there any chance Jason that you could get an extensive interview with Nadella and report what is actually going on right across ms? So far all we get is rumour and speculation and that is just not helpful.
  • Very funny article. Thanks.
  • Neaahhh...don't worry, MS isn't capable of delivering anything, so the 5G stuff...they'd better leave that to the big boys. Ms can return and play "the next big thing that we have already failed at" game. They are the best at it.
  • Stupid question, but has anybody ever demonstrated that 5G signals are dangerous under laboratory conditions? Have these experiments every been replicated? You know, peer review science? Has anybody ever put a rat in a box, blasted it with 5G signals, and then seen what happens to it? Because that's essentially what you'd need to do.
  • I hear that if you put a rat in a microwave oven for 30 seconds, the rat won't fair well.
  • We're not bathed in uniform fields of EMF. These are all point sources and the intensity drops off rapidly with distance from the antenna. Just as it is unsafe to be near a high power microwave emitter (lest you get cooked), at a certain distance, it becomes safe. If anything, a cellphone in close proximity to your head might be the most dangerous emitter, if indeed, it is dangerous. But the weak signals coming into the phone are not what is dangerous.
  • Well, theoretically, you might be getting more exposure than you think, given that the intent is to deploy a LOT more towers to mitigate the drop off. But, as I said elsewhere, I'm personally not concerned about this.
  • Hi Murray: You say: These are all point sources and the intensity drops off rapidly with distance from the antenna. This is where the nature of 5G infrastructure becomes a concern. This small towers, as noted in the article (and elsewhere), will have to be implemented at high density in residential areas, cities and towns to provide the near line of site broadcasting of EMF signals toward our devices (.i.e. us). Millimeter waves don’t travel far and solid objects (even a falling leaf, and trees) can cause interference. So many small towers will have to be put on lamp posts, signal lights l, buildings ect outside, of homes, throughout cities and towns etc., to provide that continuous connectivity. We will be bathed in much more EMF than were are now. And the consequences of that exposure are what many are concerned about. It warrants cautionary efforts (research, studies) to ensure that that unprecedented long -term exposure will be safe for humans and the environment. We must remember that 5G will ultimately enable connectivity like we've never had before. Intelligent IoT always connected IoT will be enabled and will eventually be part of our ambient computing environment (we're not just talking about the devices we carry. Smart cars will be enabled and connected both to the intelligent edge/cloud ☁ and to each outer making millisecond autonomous decisions all enabled by 5G networks and the proliferation of the small tower infrastructure to enable it. Remote, secure healthcare will be enabled. AI boosted by the capacity on the intelligent will be more capable. Real time AR and VR will be capable of much more. All this enabled by continuous connectivity on robust 5G networks, that will only be enabled by a hardware infrastructure that allows these short range millimeter waves to stay connected and unobstructed, which requires a LOT of small cell towers throughout cities, towns and residential areas. We will eventually be bathed in EMF an unprecedented levels. Cautious progression of this technology, diligently considering and creating standards to mitigate any dangers is both prudent ans beneficial in the long term, both for the industry and public good.
  • Spare me, Jason. This is no different than the consensus of scientists that say global cooling (the 1970s), but no global warming (the 1990s), but no climate Change (the 2000s) is manmade. Until someone puts a piece of paper in my hand that says her is the direct causal effect of 5G radio frequencies causing cancer, I would say all these 100s of scientists and concerned citizens are "liberal progressives" that demand government solve every problem in the world.
  • You say that you believe these people are liberal progressives who want govt to solve all the problems i the world. Actually, I believe these people are rising up against a govt that is supporting the will of corporations to implement 5G infrastructure in local communities, steamrolling the will of the people in local govts, when they believe not enough has been down to ensure its safety. Each the last video.
  • There is lots of info on the effect of radiation on human health. There is convincing evidence that the standards for cancer risk from exposure to radiation exposure in a nuclear power plant are way overstated. This is based on (I believe) a linear graph of health risk. The graph says that for each incremental rise in exposure produces a greater risk of cancer. In this case, the government states that even low levels of radiation increase cancer risk. But the science says periodic exposure to low levels of radiation have no health effects. From "Radiation safety limits are set very cautiously. The lowest doses that can clearly be linked to cancer, however, have little to do with the setting of regulatory limits for radiation. Safety limits instead use the (openly) unconfirmed Linear Threshold Model (LNT), where assumptions are made extrapolating from a confirmed high-dose risk to a hypothetical low-dose risk, and health authorities act according to the ALARA or “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” -principle."
  • I use the word "liberal progressive" for a specific reason. Progressives believe in an activist government and use qualitative arguments to justify solutions for quatifiable problems. IN this case, there is no quantifiable evidence of cancer risk from exposure to the low levels of radiation from wireless technology. But the fear of radiation leaves people susceptible to qualitative arguments (the domain of many politicians and the go-to argument of progressives). If you really wanted to make a serious argument about the impact of radiation on the health of citizens, then you would have done a lot more homework on the science of radiation effects on human health.
  • Personally, I'm just not concerned with the alleged health risks. What I find annoying is that deploying a technology that relies one a huge INCREASE in the number of towers because the range is so abysmal is beyond stupid to me. Connectivity over LTE in our area is already spotty, I can just imagine how laughable it will be with 5G. As it is, LTE took YEARS to get to our area after it had begun deploying in earnest across the country. It will very likely be years more once 5G starts rolling before it ever makes it here. And you can bet all the carriers will charge a lot more for it, too. So, we'll be paying more for a technology that is faster but much more fragile and spotty and potentially hazardous. Yup, great business decision. Companies SHOULD be trying to figure out reliable technologies that have speed and bandwidth benefits but require FEWER towers and have longer range.
  • This is true. However, the expansion of 5G entails a lot more work upgrades at the datacenter. While you may not enjoy a 5G tower near enough to your house, the expansion of 5G to other areas and the resulting increase in capacity of datacenter will allow the 4G towers near your home better capacity to deliver the services you wish to purchase.
  • Windows 10 On-screen Volume Display feature:
  • There's a lot of companies and a lot of money behind 5G. It's not going to stop. I'm sure the argument that we've had AM, FM, cellular data, and microwaves for ages without any confirmed side affects directly linked to them. The higher concentration of the towers could cause an increased risk, but Wi-Fi is also everywhere. Live in an apartment or condo and you're being bombarded by 15 or more Wi-Fi networks, and some are doubled because of the 2.4 and 5ghz frequencies. We also have smartphones and other wireless devices all around us 24/7. They could also cause side affects, but again, it's never been proven. The link between brain cancer and smartphones was debunked years ago, and there are ongoing studies as new tech is released. Money talks, and if someone can get a more reliable faster connection on their devices, they will jump on the opportunity.
  • A total of 180? Seriously. From around the globe. A total of 180. That is such a miniscule number it does not even properly constitute a "side" to the story. Time to write some real news.
  • The truth is that the cell towers signal is indeed harmful to the human body, hell even the wifi is harmful, that out of the question. I never met a scientist saying otherwise,(I am not talking about papers, I am talking face to face conversation with people I know and I can trust )
    The bottom line is that nobody really gives a f**k about safety when we are talking about an industry of trillions of dollars, we know it's harmful for years but can you imagine your life without a cell phone? Edit: the closest the towers the safer it is because they need less power (they cover less ground) but its hier the cost of building such a network.
  • There's a lot of fear-mongering and nut jobs out there from climate change (a.k.a. Global warming) to anti-whatever that pushes their agenda. Climate change is the biggest BS out there because for decades now iceberg melt and grow back. However, if you listen to Al Gore they are just melting, melting, and melting and soon there will be nothing left. Got bad news for those people, NASA spots new iceberg three times size of Manhattan in Antarctica. Go figure. This Whole 5G health scare thing is nothing different and just BS to. These same people decades ago tried to claim cell phones cause brain tumors. Got bad news for them to, scientists say they could find no substantial change in the incidence trend of brain tumors among a study group of 60,000 people five to 10 years after cell phone usage rose sharply. These were also the sample people who said cell phones are dangerous and could cause gas pumps to catch on fire. Well, there has not been any epidemic of gas stations catching on fire from cell phones. Cigarettes maybe. Yes, I actually had someone yell at me while pumping my truck with gas. Guess what? We didn't catch on fire.
  • Another day, another sensational headline about cell radiation. Firstly, the website that publish the report and video is already suspicious. Second, I found this great explanation about cell tower radiation. Third, 2.4ghz or 3.5ghz or 5.1ghz are all part of the EM "light" which obeys the inverse square law. So generally the more dense the cell tower is, the lower its transmitting power has to be as well. In fact, from an radio/electronics standpoint, there is no difference between a cell tower and a wireless router. Fourth, 5G is a bigger cousin of WiFi 2.4Ghz/5Ghz. The reason it is not able to penetrate walls is because its transmission power is so low. Just think of it as a big WiFi for the city with more power than WiFi. And because of the inverse square law and its use of an omnidirectional antenna, the power is weaken even further because the EM "light" is shining in all direction instead of pointing at something. The further you are away from it, the lower the power by half. With such low power and the fact that most people don't sit right next to the antenna every day, there is no danger of heat and it certainly is NOT a penetrating ionizing radiation like Gamma Ray, which is an order og magnitude higher in frequency and power. 5th, do not confuse 5G and 5Ghz. 5G means 5th generation telephony, yeah your iPhone is actually a telephone. You can call someone on it without using WhatsApp. 5Ghz means 5 Gigahertz which just means light oscillating at a frequency of 5 billion times a second, compared to your AC power of 50-60hertz. 6th, you don't often hear about the health impact because over more than 10 years of WiFi and 2G-4G technology beside us constantly, there is no increase in the risk of brain cancer. 7th, the only thing I can say that is negative is I don't know of any natural occurrence of 2.4-5ghz "light," so our body has not evolve to be immune to this frequency. However the human body IS somewhat resistance to natural ionizing radiation with our DNA having buffer zone and replicated regions for crucial functions. (Same for plant and animal lives.)
  • You may monitor your cellphone radiation for free, with Quanta Monitor.
  • Excellent article. Like most technology, all companies see are dollar-signs. They only ask, CAN we do this? When really they should be asking themselves, SHOULD we do this? The health-risks of EMF are well documented, proven scientifically over decades of research, and now we are on the brink of unleashing something potentially terrible. It's not just Microsoft. It's Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Sprint, and tech giants like Google, Apple, Samsung, and many many more that are gunning for the 1st Place Trophy for 5G... Example - Facebook. Did Mark Zuckerberg think about the potential impact of Facebook on social development, social isolation, mental health issues, political ramifications, etc.? No, he didn't. He said "let's make something cool", and then it turned into a multi-billion dollar platform. Only in 2018, 14 years later, Zuckerberg was testifying in front of Congress that basically he did not know the full details of how his own company was being run, Cambridge Analytica mining and selling user information, and trolls targeting specific demographics in an attempt to sway the United States Presidential 2016 Election. Food For Thought...CAN we? Or SHOULD we?
  • Hi Jason, sorry to dredge up an old post, but the NYT today revealed the information you based this on was a Russian disinformation campaign. Can you please retract? Thanks!