5G Networks Pros & Cons - Discuss

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Given that various studies give a range of results, it's probably not too difficult to choose a position and then find studies that support the argument.


I fully agree. And I did not take a side on this one. On a practical note, I use (and sell) WiFi systems, so I am clearly not paranoid about it, but this is not to say that I am 100% certain that they are 100% safe. I agree that we just don't know for fact. Take for example her comment that survives of the Atom bomb in Japan only developed brain tumors 40 years later. Will WiFi and mobile phones become the Asbestos of future generations? Who knows.

But... my point is that anyone jumping on the 5G bandwagon these days is probably somewhat of a layman or an ignorant, i.e. if they had no idea that this issue is being debated and researched by academics for over 30 years now.
 
I agree. The difficulty with such a timeline is proving or clearly demonstrating cause and effect, especially for diseases like cancer.
 
I also remember an ongoing debate regarding the effects of national-grid transforms, high-voltage lines and pylons, on human health, with claims that people living nearby any of these have a significantly higher rate of cancers.

Many years ago I was responsible for quite a large 11kv network with numerous air cooled 11kv/415v transformers. These transformers were mostly located in their own buildings however we had one pair located in the basement of an office block. When personal computers became common place it was noticed that the magnetic field in the offices immediately above the transformers was strong enough to affect the CRT displays.

CRT's always were easily affected by magnetic fields which is why the old CRT TV's had magnetically shielded speakers but amount of persuasion would placate the ladies in this office which is hardly surprising given the nature of this invisible force. We had to construct a substantial Faraday cage around the transformers to resolve the problem.
 
This was a reader's comment in the Daily Mail today:

"Marty, Helsinki, 5 hours ago

I am a 5G research engineer/scientist/physicist. Do you think I would develop something which would hurt my family and especially my 11 year son? The 5G signal (waveform) is actually exactly the same as 4G signal, there is no difference. Only meaningful difference is that there is possibility to use higher frequency (so-called millimeter-wave band) but it is not yet used anywhere. And there are not even any phones to support it!"

Obviously there's no way to verify who the reader actually is, but if what he is saying is accurate, then it supports my view that the issue of 5G posing a health risk is, in fact, a red herring.
 
This was a reader's comment in the Daily Mail today:

"Marty, Helsinki, 5 hours ago

I am a 5G research engineer/scientist/physicist. Do you think I would develop something which would hurt my family and especially my 11 year son? The 5G signal (waveform) is actually exactly the same as 4G signal, there is no difference. Only meaningful difference is that there is possibility to use higher frequency (so-called millimeter-wave band) but it is not yet used anywhere. And there are not even any phones to support it!"

Obviously there's no way to verify who the reader actually is, but if what he is saying is accurate, then it supports my view that the issue of 5G posing a health risk is, in fact, a red herring.

If there is no difference between 4G & 5G, then why all the Clamour and Hoo Hah to install 5G?:rolleyes::dk:
 
If there is no difference between 4G & 5G, then why all the Clamour and Hoo Hah to install 5G?:rolleyes::dk:
My understanding is that 5G uses Massive-MIMO, which is one of its main features.

In essence this is a 360 array of small antennas. So when a client is connected (a client in thus case being a mobile phone), the 5G cell can aggregate the data from all antennas that can communicate with the client, even those that are not facing the client directly and have only marginal connection with the client.

The result is much more bandwidth, and the ability to support a very large number of clients per cell simultaneously.
 
Also, what I found while searching online is that 5G currently uses spectrum in the existing LTE/4G frequency range 600MHz to 6GHz. The ability to use the millimeter wave bands 24–86GHz is not yet supported by existing client devices.
 
From what I’ve read since starting this, significant benefits of 5G:
It’s a full duplex system, so devices can transmit and receive at the same time;
It has very low latency so is better for real-time network controlled devices;
It has much higher bandwidth than 4G so can handle more data more quickly;
Can cope with many more users/devices than 4G.

Disadvantages seem to be:
If higher frequencies are used, they don’t travel far and are blocked/attenuated by foliage;
Many more transmitters will be needed to provide the required coverage;
Lack of transparency/regulation on potential new use cases;
 
From what I’ve read since starting this, significant benefits of 5G:
It’s a full duplex system, so devices can transmit and receive at the same time;
It has very low latency so is better for real-time network controlled devices;
It has much higher bandwidth than 4G so can handle more data more quickly;
Can cope with many more users/devices than 4G.

Disadvantages seem to be:
If higher frequencies are used, they don’t travel far and are blocked/attenuated by foliage;
Many more transmitters will be needed to provide the required coverage;
Lack of transparency/regulation on potential new use cases;
Areas with street lights xoule be well served because there’s a regularly place source of electricity. It will be tricky to get coverage in true rural areas, although that’s not an issue if the the existing older generation masts are maintained.
 
From what I’ve read since starting this, significant benefits of 5G:
It’s a full duplex system, so devices can transmit and receive at the same time;
It has very low latency so is better for real-time network controlled devices;
It has much higher bandwidth than 4G so can handle more data more quickly;
Can cope with many more users/devices than 4G.

Disadvantages seem to be:
If higher frequencies are used, they don’t travel far and are blocked/attenuated by foliage;
Many more transmitters will be needed to provide the required coverage;
Lack of transparency/regulation on potential new use cases;
Another consideration when employing higher frequencies is that radio signal strength is inversely proportional to atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity. So when it rains the signal drops dramatically.
 
I think the various arguments needs to be thought through.

I don't really accept the argument that there's no need for faster connections, because the rule of thumb that served me in my life-long IT career is that demand will always exceed capacity at some point... this is true for bandwidth, for physical network points, disk space / storage, and all things IT. Investing more for additional capacity now simply means that the customer is buying more time until they need to upgrade again, but upgrade again they will, without fail.

Obviously *some* people will have no need for faster connections, or perhaps won't be able to benefit from the new technology for other reasons, but this is not the same as saying that we (the UK) as a nation don't need it, in the same way that we won't accept a car-less person's claim that we don't need more roads or that we don't need to reduce congestion etc.

As for the health risks, I am sure that living in a crowded city, breathing fumes from exhausts, eating fast food, and getting bombarded by electromagnetic radiation is less healthy than living on a mountain in Switzerland, breathing crisp air from the Alps, and eating freshly made bread and cheese.

So we are already making compromises between progress and health, and part of the counter-argument here would be that the negative effects of pollution and radiation are more than compensated-for by the advances in medicine and healthcare.

That said, I am by no means convinced that we are on the right path as such.

While I can accept that technology will in some cases harm our health, and that's part and parcel of progress, this is not to say that society should write an open cheque.

Scientific search and better understanding of what we are getting ourselves (and future generations) into is vital. Then we can decide how to proceed.

It can take 10 or 15 years to develop and test a new drug, and only then we can assess if the benefits outweigh the downsides. And yet new technology is being rolled out first, and the studies are carried out later.

But the Luddites who burn down masts and spread conspiracy theories and other scare stories are not helping the process, if anything they are trying to compound solid science with near-witchcraft, making us all worse off in the bigger scheme of things.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom