I did a post about a week back about 5G towers not having any evidence of killing birds and quite a debate erupted across a few of my networks about it. I've dug a lot deeper since and can now clarify some differences that are really important to consider, and why my statement about 5G towers giving off LESS radiation was not correct:
* 5G as a frequency around 85GHz has LESS skin/body penetration than lower frequencies if all things are equal like antenna and power output (that's a simple radio fact that some have got wrong - see Ref 1 below).
* Cellphone towers don't have a single omni-directional antenna (this is what I did not account for and things are therefore not "equal") as they have arrays of over 100 beam-forming antennas.
* 5G towers will be in closer proximity than 4G (and earlier) to make up for the less penetration challenge. This point and the one point above means yes there is overall more radiation than with 3G or 4G.
* Most cellphone radiation tests have been done on uplinks (from a handset, not downlink from a tower) because firstly its easier to control and measure (put it in a Faraday cage to isolate), and secondly it actually looks better results wise based on all things being "equal". From an uplink perspective 5G is much safer (closer towers and less penetration).
* I cannot source any real-world tests done for downlink tower radiation but I did find the US study referenced below (Ref 2) which certainly shows in theory that the radiation from a 5G tower is more because of proximity and the beam-forming antenna arrays. Both these measures are needed to overcome 5G's shortcomings as a higher frequency. The study also highlights the necessity to have thorough investigation into human exposure to RF from downlink radiation exposure (ie. there is a lack of such studies from the tower side).
* What is certainly needed is proper real-world tests on a mesh of 5G towers (not a single tower) to show and measure what the radiation effect actually is.
* So we know in theory 5G towers do give off more radiation, but the next question is, is it actually harmful as humans exposed to it in the real world? We know it penetrates a lot less, but at current power levels, does it actually harm over time? We need real world tests as we've seen before numerous theories have been wrong based on incorrect assumptions (like even I made).
Ref 1 - The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t - How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html
Ref 2 - Department of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Southern University - Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03683.pdf
I'll welcome motivated comments and debate on this, but they must be backed up with the reference to a specific point being made - no vague generalisations or trolling.
#radiationThe 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t
How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology.