The fifth generation ("5G") technology, which is the next generation of cellular technology, smartphones in particular, is about to be launched. And with it comes concern about the health damage this new, more powerful network could cause. But how much should we worry about claims of the global health collapse that technology is supposed to bring with it?
Undoubtedly, you have come across so far a number of articles related to this topic, published on "Facebook" or on health-related websites, which deal in essence with one basic idea, which is that the fifth generation technology is a dangerous escalation of technology Conventional cellular, as it is teeming with higher energy radiations, which cause potential harm to humans. Some 5G critics claim that the new network generates radiofrequency radiation that can damage human DNA and cause cancer. or oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; or by disrupting cell metabolism; or even causing other diseases through the generation of stress proteins. Some articles cite studies and research opinions from reputable organizations such as the World Health Organization.
To be honest, it sounds alarming, but let's look at the purely scientific details.
What is the fifth generation?
The past few years have witnessed intensive and accelerated work on the production of the fifth generation network, but the year 2020 marks the beginning of the process of telecom companies introducing this new wireless level. AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have all started installing their networks since the beginning of the year, though broadband availability is still a year or more away. 5G technology will gain a foothold in several cities this year.
Update: With the onset of the novel coronavirus pandemic, a number of widespread conspiracy theories on social media have speculated that 5G technology is the cause of the world's current problems. Quite simply, these are false claims, as purification does not cause coronavirus.
The limited spread of the network did not prevent device manufacturers and service providers from catching up with the fifth generation technology. For example, Samsung prepared its two new phones, the Galaxy 10 and Galaxy Fold, to use the 5G network. Like other companies in the field, such as Huawei, LG, Motorola, ZTI, and others.
The fifth generation provides at least a tenfold improvement in terms of network performance. And while the fourth generation network was the previous great development after its introduction in 2009 with a maximum speed of 10 megabytes per second, the “5G” is preparing to provide maximum speeds ranging from 10 gigabytes to 20 gigabytes per second. Network latency will drop from 30 milliseconds to about 1 millisecond, which is an ideal speed for streaming video games, online videos, and the Internet of Things, which is waiting for the new network to connect sensors, computers, and other devices through very low latency.
Evolving fears
Before we get into the 5G network, it is important to note that the recent concerns about the impact of radiation on health did not come out of nowhere. It is the latest development from decades of headlines about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. We've seen arguments about everything from the supposed health risks of Wi-Fi to smart meters.
For example, electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a hypothetical disease in which sufferers experience debilitating symptoms when they are surrounded by radiation from cell phones, Wi-Fi networks, and other technologies. However, although many people have claimed, for at least 30 years, that they have experienced such sensitivity, systematic scientific reviews have found that people whose eyes were closed during experiments to examine whether they would be affected by this “electromagnetic sensitivity” without knowing its existence in advance showed that they could not determine The presence of an electromagnetic field, and the World Health Organization recommends today, psychological assessments of people most affected by this alleged sensitivity.
Similarly, studies over the past decades have found no link between cell phones and cancers such as brain tumors, although that hasn't stopped municipalities like San Francisco from passing laws requiring phone stores to display the percentage of radiation emitted by phones, which Consumers view it as a risk.
How dangerous is radiofrequency radiation?
The root of all concerns about cell phone networks lies in radio frequency radiation, or RFR for short. This radiation is everything that is emitted in the electromagnetic spectrum, from microwaves, X-rays, radio waves, and even light from Screens of computer and cellular devices, but also sunlight. Obviously, RFR is not inherently dangerous, so the problem becomes finding out what conditions might make it harmful.
Scientists say that the most important criterion for determining whether any particular radiofrequency radiation constitutes a danger or not is its location of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. To put it simply, non-ionizing radiation is too weak to break chemical bonds, and includes ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and everything that emits a lower frequency, such as radio waves. Everyday technologies such as power lines, modulated frequency (FM), and Wi-Fi fall into this range. (Microwaves are the only exception. Although they are not ionizing, they can damage tissue. They are deliberately fine-tuned to respond to water molecules.) Higher frequencies of ultraviolet radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays, are ionizing.
Assistant Professor of Neuroscience from Yale University, and editor of the medical and scientific journal "Science Based Medicine", Steve Novella, realizes that people generally worry about any radiation, and he says in this regard that "using the term radiation is misleading because people think it is related With nuclear weapons, they come to mind ionizing radiation, which can cause damage, of course, as it can kill cells and cause mutations in DNA. But since non-ionizing radiation damages neither DNA nor tissue, Novella points out that most concerns about radiofrequency radiation from cell phones are misplaced. "There is no known mechanism for most forms of non-ionizing radiation that makes it biologically effective," he says.
Or, in the less precise but more sensible words of author C. Stewart Hardwick: "Radiation is not deadly magic."
Incomplete results
The fact that there is no known mechanism for non-harming radiation to have a biological effect does not mean that it is safe or that it has no effect. In fact, researchers are still in the midst of conducting studies on the topic. A recent study in this regard was released by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services. In this much-cited study of cell phone radiofrequency radiation, scientists found that high exposure to 3G RFR caused some cases of carcinoid heart tumors, brain tumors and adrenal gland tumors in male laboratory mice.
The study is a good lesson in how hard it is to do this scientific test. As the journal Real Clear Science points out, the number of tumors detected was so small that, statistically speaking, it was likely a fluke (which is likely because the tumors were only found in some male mice). Moreover, the level and duration of radiofrequency radiation to which the mice were exposed was much higher than what any human being would actually be exposed to. In fact, the mice that were exposed to radiation lived longer than the control group that wasn't exposed to radiation. And about that, says Dr. Novella: "Experienced researchers look at a study like this and say it tells us absolutely nothing."
Assessing the risks of 5G technology
Let us put aside the ongoing studies. 5G is coming, and as I mentioned above, there are concerns about this new technology.
There is a common accusation against 5G networks that due to the low power of their transmitters, a large number of them will be installed. The Environmental Health Fund Foundation (literally translated from English) claims that "5G will require the construction of hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in neighborhoods, cities, and towns. A small cellular cell or transmitter will be placed between every two and ten homes, according to estimates."
Says d. Novella: "What they're really saying is that the dose [radiation dose] will be higher. Theoretically, that's a reasonable question and it should be raised." But skeptics should note that they should not confuse raising this issue with the mere assertion that it is dangerous. As Novella explains, "We're still talking about energy and frequency lower than light. When you're walking around in the sun, it floods you with much more electromagnetic radiation than 5G cell towers."
It is easy to find claims circulating on various digital platforms that the higher frequency of 5G alone poses a danger. The "Health Radiation Risks" website (in literal translation from English) notes that the "first, second, third, and fourth generation" technologies use between one gigahertz and up to five gigahertz, while the fifth generation uses between 24 and 90 gigahertz. ", stressing that "the higher the frequency within the radio radiation part of the electromagnetic spectrum, the more dangerous it poses to living organisms."
However, the assumption that the higher frequency poses a greater danger to living organisms remains just an assumption, as there is no scientific support for this, as the fifth generation radio frequency radiations remain non-ionizing in nature.
The US Federal Communications Commission, which is responsible for licensing the electromagnetic spectrum for public use, has weight in this matter as well. "For 5G equipment, the frequencies emitted by commercial radio transmitters are usually well below the RF exposure limits anywhere the public can access," says Neil Derek Grace, communications officer at the TRA. The FCC credits the Food and Drug Administration for actual health risk assessments, which take a straightforward but low-key approach to addressing risk, stating that "scientific evidence has not linked cell phones to any health problems."
In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated radioactive radiation as a Group 2b agent, which has been defined as a "probable human carcinogen". This is also not precise enough to judge him, Novella says, for example: "I look at all the other things that [the World Health Organization] classify as possible carcinogens. They put it (radioradiation) in the same category as substances like caffeine. That's such a weak standard that it It doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying 'everything causes cancer.'"
One of the problems is the WHO's declaration that it focuses on the potential for risk, not the risk itself, a nuance that non-researchers often miss. And when the World Health Organization classifies coffee, nickel, or pickles as possible carcinogens, it assumes potential risks without considering their real danger. "A loaded gun is dangerous because in theory it can cause harm. But if you put it in a safe, the risk is small," Novella explains.
Scientists will continue to test new networks as technology evolves, with the goal of ensuring that the technology we use every day remains secure. Last February, US Senator Richard Blumenthal criticized the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration for insufficient research into the potential risks of 5G technology. As the aforementioned study shows, research into radiation risks is difficult and often inconclusive, which means that it may take a long time before any real progress is made in this regard.
But for the time being, everything we know about 5G suggests that there is nothing to worry about. After all, we use several technologies with higher measurable risks, every day. And as Dr. says. Novella: "With 5G there is a low probability of risk, but it is not non-existent, and the actual risk appears to be zero. We have not received any signal in the real world."
