5G Should we fear the fifth generation technology?

Below is an adapted translation of "Arab 48" by writer Dave Johnson, a technology journalist and writer, who has authored at least 30 books on technology, digital photography, small business and robotics.

The fifth generation technology ("5G"), which is the next generation of cellular technology, and smart phones in particular, is about to be launched.  And it comes with her concern about the health damage that this new and more powerful network can cause than its predecessors.  But to what extent do we have to worry about the allegations of the global health meltdown that the technology is supposed to bring with it?

 There is no doubt that you have so far encountered a number of articles related to this subject, published on Facebook, or on health-related websites, which deal in essence with one basic idea, which is that the fifth generation technology is considered a dangerous escalation of traditional cellular technology,  It is packed with higher energy radiation, which causes potential harm to humans.  Some 5G critics claim that the new network generates radio-frequency radiation that can damage human DNA and cause cancer; or oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; or disrupt the metabolism in the cell; or even cause other diseases  By generating stress proteins.  Some articles cite studies and research opinions from prestigious organizations such as the World Health Organization.
To be honest, it sounds worrisome, but let's take a 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 in 2020 it marks the beginning of the process of introducing telecommunications companies to this new wireless level.  AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint began installing their networks since the beginning of the year, although their widespread availability was still a year or more away.  The technology of the fifth generation will gain a foothold in several cities this year.



 Update: With the emergence of the emerging pandemic, a number of widespread conspiracy theories have speculated on social media that the 5G technology is the cause of the world's current problems.  Quite simply, these are false allegations, as purification does not cause corona virus.

 The limited spread of the network did not prevent the device manufacturers and service providers from catching up with the fifth generation technology. For example, Samsung, with its new phone, Galaxy 10 and Galaxy Fold, prepared for the use of the 5G network, as was the case.  Other companies in the field, such as "Huawei", "LG", "Motorola", "ZTE", and others.


 The fifth generation offers at least a tenfold improvement in terms of network performance.  While the fourth generation network was the previous big development after its launch in 2009 with a maximum speed of 10 Mbps, the "5G" is preparing to provide top speeds ranging from 10 GB to 20 GB per second.  The network waiting time will drop from 30 ms to about 1 ms, which is an ideal speed for streaming video games, online video clips, and the Internet of Things, which is waiting for the new network to connect sensors, computers, and other devices through very low waiting times

Fears develop

 Before we touch on the fifth generation network, it is important to note that the recent concerns about the impact of radiation on health have not come out of the blue, as they are the newest development for decades of the headlines on 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 that affects people with symptoms of weakness and weakness when surrounded by radiation from mobile phones, Wi-Fi networks, and other technologies.  However, despite claims by many people for at least 30 years that they were exposed to such sensitivity, systematic scientific reviews found that people whose eyes were closed during experiments to examine whether they would be affected by this "electromagnetic sensitivity" without knowing it already exists, showed that they could not determine  The presence of an electromagnetic field, and the World Health Organization recommends today, to conduct psychological assessments of persons most affected by this alleged sensitivity.

 Likewise, studies over the past decades have not found any link between cell phones and cancers such as brain tumors, although this did not prevent municipalities like the San Francisco municipality from passing laws requiring phone stores to display the percentage of radiation emitted by phones, which consumers view  On that risk.

 How dangerous is radio-frequency radiation?

 The root of all worries about cellular networks lies in radio-frequency radiation, which is referred to as "RFR", and this radiation is all that is emitted in the electromagnetic spectrum, from microwaves, X-rays, radio waves, and even the light from the screens of computer devices  Cellular, and even sunlight.  RFR is clearly not dangerous in nature, so the problem becomes in discovering the conditions that might make it harmful.

Scientists say that the most important criterion for determining whether any particular radio-frequency radiation is dangerous or not, is in its position of ionizing, or non-ionizing, radiation.  For simplicity, non-ionizing radiation is too weak to break chemical bonds, including ultraviolet, visible light, and infrared radiation, and everything that emits a lower frequency, such as radio waves.  The technologies used daily, such as power lines, embedded frequency (FM), and "Wi-Fi" are in this range.  (Microwaves are the only exception, although they are not ionized but they are able to damage tissues, they are carefully and deliberately tuned to respond to water molecules.)  The higher frequencies of UV rays, such as X-rays and gamma rays, are ionized.

 Assistant Professor of Neuroscience from Yale University and editor of the Science and Medical Medicine Science, Steve Novella, realizes that people generally worry about any radiation, and he says in this regard that “the use of the term radiation is misleading because people think it is related to nuclear weapons,  Ionizing radiation comes to their minds, which, of course, can cause damage. It can kill cells and cause DNA mutations. "  But since non-ionizing radiation does not damage DNA or tissue, Novella suggests that most of the concerns about radio-frequency radiation from cell phones are misplaced.  "There is no known mechanism for most forms of non-ionizing radiation to make it biologically effective," he says.

Or in less accurate but more rational words by C

 Incomplete results

 The absence of a known mechanism for non-harmful radiation that makes it biologically effective 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 subject.  A recent study in this regard was released by the US National Toxicology Program (NTB), an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services.  In this study, which is frequently cited for criticizing radio-frequency radiation of cellular phones, scientists found that high exposure to the "third generation network" RFR, caused some cases of cancerous heart tumors, brain tumors and adrenal glands in male laboratory mice.
 The study is a good lesson in how difficult it is to do this scientific test.  As the scientific journal "Clear Claire Science" indicates, the number of tumors discovered was so small that, in terms of statistically, their occurrence was probably just a coincidence (which is likely because the tumors were found in some male mice only).  Moreover, the level and duration of radio frequency radiation to which the mice were exposed were much higher than what any person would actually be exposed to, and even the mice that were exposed to radiation lived longer than the control group mice that were not exposed to radiation.  On that, Dr. says.

 Fifth Generation Technology Risk Assessment

 Let's neutralize ongoing studies aside.  The fifth generation technology is coming, and as I mentioned above, there are concerns about this new technology.

 There is a common charge for 5G networks that due to the low power of their transmitters, a large number of them will be installed.  The Environmental Health Fund Foundation (with literal translation from the English language) claims, “Fifth generation technology will require the construction of hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in neighborhoods, cities and towns. A small cell cell or transmitter will be placed between every two to ten homes according to estimates.”

 Dr. says. In theory, this is a reasonable issue and should be asked."  But skeptics should be aware that they should not confuse this issue with the abstract assertion that its formation is dangerous.  And as Novella explains: “We still talk about less energy and frequency than light. When you wander in the sun, they flood you with much greater electromagnetic radiation than the fifth-generation cell towers.”

 It is easy to find allegations roaming on various digital platforms that the greater frequency of 5G is a single risk.  The Health Radiation Hazards website (in literal translation from the English language) notes that the techniques of "first, second, third and fourth generation" are used from one gigahertz to five gigahertz, while the fifth generation uses between 24 to 90 gHz  Emphasizing that "the greater the frequency within the radio radiation part of the electromagnetic spectrum, the more it forms the danger to living organisms."

 But the assumption that the higher frequency poses a greater threat to living organisms remains only an assumption, as there is no scientific support for this. Fifth-generation radio-frequency radiation remains inherently non-ionizing.

 The US Federal Communications Commission, responsible for electromagnetic spectrum licenses for public use, has weight in this matter as well.  "For 5G equipment, the frequencies emitted by commercial wireless transmitters are usually much lower than the limits of exposure to radio frequency anywhere the public can reach," says Communications Authority official Neil Derek Grace.  The FCC refers to the Food and Drug Administration to conduct actual health risk assessments, which take a direct but low-level approach to risk management, that "scientific evidence has not linked cell phones to any health problems."

 In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the radioactive radiation classification as a factor of group "2B", which was identified as "a possible human carcinogen."  This is also not accurate enough to judge him, Novella says, for example: "I look at all the other things that (WHO) classifies as potential carcinogens. They put it (radio radiation) in the same category with substances like caffeine. This is a weak standard that  Basically it means nothing. It is like saying 'everything causes cancer'.

One of the problems lies in the World Health Organization's declaration that it focuses on the potential for danger, not the risk itself, which is a nuance that most researchers do not notice.  And when the World Health Organization classifies coffee, nickel, or pickles as potential carcinogens, it assumes potential risks to them without regard to their true risk.  Novella explains this by saying, "The gun stuffed with bullets is dangerous because it can cause damage at the theoretical level. But if you put it in a safe, the risk is minimal."

 Scientists will continue to test new networks as technology evolves, with the goal of making sure that the technology we use daily remains safe.  Last February, US Senator Richard Blumenthal criticized the FCC and the Food and Drug Administration for insufficient research into the potential dangers of 5G technology.  As the above study shows, researching the risks of radiation is difficult and often does not lead to conclusive results, 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 networks indicates that you don't have to worry.  After all, we use many technologies with a higher, measurable risk, over the course of a day.  And as Dr. says  . We have not received any indication in the real world.”