Monday, April 22, 2019

"The Future Of 5G" (PBS Science Friday): My Summary and Comments

Brian Fung - Washington Post

5G should be available in most US cities by 2020; many years later for complete nationwide coverage.

Race to 5G: role out quickly so US can dominate development of new technologies (e.g., self-driving cars).
U.S has security concerns re: Chinese manufacturers of 5G equipment.

NASA and NOAA's concerns re: interference with weather monitoring and forecasting; "bureaucratic tussle."


Harold Feld - Public Knowledge

5G may increase digital divide because this technology requires "densification" (i.e., many cell antennas); this will be 10 times more expensive to build out than current cellular technology; rural areas and poor urban areas may not get 5G due to high cost to install the infrastructure.

Trump recently announced $20 billion program over 10 years to provide broadband access to rural areas; but this is the same old Obama program of $2 billion per year; we need a more aggressive program.

Many states adopted laws which remove all regulations on deployment. California is considering such a law. This will increase the digital divide.


Ira Flatow (IP)

IF: Senator Blumenthal & Rep. Eshoo - asked FCC for proof that 5G is safe

Devra Davis (taped, not live): Wants moratorium on deployment of 5G due to concerns about health effects.

[My comments: Instead of relying on a single sound byte from a pre-taped interview with Dr. Devra Davis, she should have been on the program to address the problematic assertions made by Drs. Bucher and Samet.]

[Christie Taylor, the associate producer for Science Friday, scheduled a phone interview with me yesterday and then failed to follow up. I was available to provide an alternative perspective on the show re: the science and implications for public health if Devra was not available to do this. So read on if you are interested in what I might have said.]

IF: National Toxicology Program (NTP) found tumor increase in male rats exposed to 2G & 3G


John Bucher (JB) & Jonathan Samet (JS)

JB: NTP looked at whether non-ionizing cell phone radiation via safety assessment studies; described study design; whole body exposures; largely negative findings in mice and female rats; NTP found increased tumors in glial cells in heart and brains of male rats; 2G & 3G radiation; NTP used 1,000-fold higher exposure than typical cell phone exposure.

[My comments: The increased incidence of heart cancers in the male rats were Schwann cells, not glial cells. The Schwann cells are similar to glial cells, but the former are in the peripheral nervous system, and the latter, in the central nervous system; both cell types produce myelin, a fatty sheath which insulates the nerves. NTP found "clear evidence" of increased heart schwannoma and "some evidence" of increased (brain) glioma in male rats. Several case-control studies with humans have found increased incidence of glioma and acoustic neuroma (aka vestibular schwannoma) in the head of heavy cell phone users. I doubt this is coincidental with the findings in the NTP study. ]

[JB claimed that typical cell phone exposures are 1,000 times less than those used in the NTP study. Although technically this may be accurate, it seems like a specious argument. The NTP study employed full body exposures. In the rats these exposures were 1.5 watts per kilogram, 3.0 watts per kilogram, or 6.0 watts per kilogram. In contrast, cell phones in the U.S. can legally expose the user to a maximum of 1.6 watts per kilogram, but this is a partial body exposure, not a full body exposure. Nonetheless, the NTP study was designed to emulate realistic levels of cell phone partial body exposures even though it used a full body exposure system because it is not practical to partially expose rats to cellular radiation over a long period of time. I suppose if one is comparing the full body exposure from a cell phone to the full body exposures of the rats in the NTP study, JB's statement may be accurate, but making this distinction now is revisionist history in terms of the justification for the design of the NTP study. JB should have mentioned that a similar study conducted by the Ramazzini Institute found increased incidence of heart schwannoma in male rats with a full body exposure of only 0.1 watts per kilogram.]

[For more information about the NTP study see:
Also see:

JS: We need more research to apply the NTP findings to people.

[My comments: Numerous EMF scientists believe we have adequate data to adopt stronger RF guidelines and do not need to wait for more research. See the International EMF Scientist Appeal signed by 247 scientists from 42 nations. All have published peer-reviewed research on EMF and biology or health totaling more than 2,000 papers in professional journals.]

[Since the IARC review of RF radiation conducted in 2011 which was chaired by JS, more than 1,000 experimental and epidemologic studies on RF have been published.  The preponderance of these studies have found bioeffects or health effects -- most studies employed low intensity (non-thermal exposure) exposure to RF.]

JB: NTP is assembling a new exposure system and will look at molecular changes in organs; NTP hopes to extend the research to 4G and possibly 5G.

[My comments: Does the NTP have the funding to conduct this research? What is the timeline for completion of these studies?  Wouldn't it be prudent to wait until this research is completed before allowing the deployment of 5G?]

JS: Often with animal studies there are inconsistencies; effects were in male rats, not female rats, but that doesn't change the fact that effects were found.

IF: Are we conducting a population study with billions of people by deploying 5G?

[My comments: Yes, we should not experiment on the population by deploying 5G which uses millimeter waves in addition to new microwave frequencies ("low bands" and  "mid bands").  Over two hundred scientists (including about 100 EMF scientists) and medical doctors have signed a petition, The 5G Appeal, calling for a moratorium on 5G. Also see: Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G.]

[The FCC has been gathering input from scientists and the public since 2003 regarding its cell phone exposure limits which were adopted in 1996 and protect the public only from short-term heating risks. Although the Commission has received thousands of submissions that call into question the adequacy of the guidelines including hundreds of research studies, the FCC has yet to review their exposure limits. The NTP study and the Ramazzini Institute study provide "clear evidence" that long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation can cause cancer. Isn't it time for the FCC to strengthen its exposure guidelines?]

JS: Tumor registries monitor cancer rates but we don't want to wait to see if cancer incidence has increased; we need the right studies to look at health risks: animal studies that look at mechanisms; perhaps some creative epidemiologic studies too.

[My comments: With the exception of the NTP cell phone radiation study, the Federal government has barely funded any research on the bioeffects or health effects of EMF exposure since the 1990's. 

IF: Why no explosion in human cancers so far?

JS: Many cancers develop over long period of time; 30-40 year lag from nuclear radiation exposure for some cancers so we can't be certain that cell phone use is safe.

JB: Mechanisms: Heat is one possible mechanism, but current regulations protect against heating effects. Other possible mechanisms include oxidative stress inhibits repair mechanisms; diminished immune response; permeabliity of blood-brain barrier. We don't really know the mechanism.

[My comments: EMF causes health effects via multiple mechanisms. See my list of mechanistic studies at Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies. Moreover, medicine and public health generally does not wait for a complete understanding of the mechanisms to prevent or treat diseases .

JB: NTP wants to establish biological markers and use them to test different frequencies; 5G won't penetrate beyond the skin unlike 2G and 3G; male rats in NTP absorbed more radiation perhaps because they were larger.

[My comments: This is inaccurate. 5G includes microwaves (low band and mid band) in addition to millimeter waves; microwaves can penetrate the entire body.]

[The research on millimeter waves indicates that it will have direct effects on the skin, sweat glands, peripheral nervous system, the eyes and the testes. Many organs and systems within the body will be adversely impacted.




The Future Of 5G

PBS Science Friday, April 19, 2019

Moderated by Ira Flatow 
Last week, President Trump announced a new initiative to push forward the implementation of 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity for smartphones and other devices. Under the plan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will auction off sections of high-frequency radio spectrum, and pour more money into rural broadband connectivity—all in the name of winning an international race to build wireless networks that could be up to 100 times faster than the current generation, 4G LTE.
How is this faster speed possible, and how quickly will it become accessible to consumers? Washington Posttechnology reporter Brian Fung explains the innovations that would enable greater rates of data transmission—plus the current progress of both the U.S. and international rollout. (Read an F.A.Q. on what 5G is all about with Fung below.)
But Harold Feld, a lawyer and consumer advocate, says not everyone will benefit equally from 5G as plans currently stand—including rural communities.
One of the top technology candidates for 5G relies on higher frequencies and bringing more smaller-signal base stations much closer to the people using them. But what does research say about how it will affect human health? Researchers review what the literature has suggested so far about non-ionizing radiation from 2G and 3G, including a 2018 study from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) that found an increase in tumors for male rats. The NTP’s John Bucher and Jonathan Samet of the Colorado School of Public Health join Ira to discuss the data, and the limitations of research to date. Plus, toxicologist and epidemiologist Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust provides a statement on the health concerns of 5G.

Frequently Asked Questions About 5G

Science Friday spoke with Washington Post technology reporter Brian Fung before the Friday show to ask commonly asked questions about the next generation of wireless networks.

What does “5G” stand for?“5G” stands for the fifth generation of wireless networks. 5G is essentially the successor of 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE), the mobile data network used by your devices today, says Brian Fung, technology reporter at the Washington Post, in a call to Science Friday ahead of the show.   
What will the first push of 5G look like for everyday users?Proponents of 5G say that its ability to transmit a lot of data very quickly, “makes it perfect for applications like self-driving cars, potentially, or a burgeoning Internet of Things, where you have lots of smart appliances or smart home devices that are connected to the internet,” says Fung.
“5G is basically opening up a whole new class of applications and new technologies, which right now are pretty limited,” says Fung. “It’s not just self-driving cars, but truly wireless virtual reality and augmented reality [among some of the potential technologies].”
How much faster will 5G be than 4G LTE? Or 3G?In the 3G era, consumers were able to get access to email and browse the web on their phones, says Fung. With the upgrade to 4G, people could start using their phones to actively participate online “instead of consuming the internet passively,” Fung says—using apps, watching and uploading videos, posting on Instagram, and so on. The shift from 3G to 4G may not have felt as dramatic, because users could still engage in richer media consumption online using wireless internet at home. “The switch from 4G to 5G is going to be a bigger deal than 3G to 4G,” Fung says.
5G speeds have been predicted to be as high as 100 times faster than a mobile device using 4G, according to carriers such as AT&T, says Fung. At its theoretical peak, users will experience estimated maximum download speeds of 1,000 megabits per second, compared to 10 to 15 megabits per second with 4G LTE, says Fung.
5G speeds have been predicted to be as high as 100 times faster than a mobile device using 4G.
When can we realistically expect 5G to roll out?Most analysts don’t think we will have widespread 5G networks available in the United States until at least late 2019 and more likely 2020, says Fung—but even then, “there aren’t even very many phones that are capable of taking advantage of this technology in the United States.”
What is millimeter wave technology?There are many different telecommunication technologies on the table for supporting a 5G network. One of the popular options is tapping into millimeter wavelengths—relieving the increasingly more congested radio bands that our devices currently use to transmit data. Millimeter waves are a higher frequency wavelength than radio waves. Not only would broadcasting over millimeter waves free up the overcrowded spectrum, but it would also mean “you can pump a lot of information through it over a given period of time,” says Fung.
However, the problem with millimeter waves is how far they travel and how penetrable they can be: “Lower frequency airwaves that we have been using to date are pretty good at going through walls and going through buildings, so that’s why you can get a cell phone signal in your office,” Fung says. “But the thing with millimeter waves is that they are not very good at penetrating these barriers, and what they typically do instead is bounce off.”
The industry is working around this issue by creating small cell networks—groups of stations a fraction of the size of traditional cell towers—that would work together to pass off signals, avoiding any dropped transmissions that would be blocked by objects. Some small cell networks are already used for 4G, but more would be a crucial component for 5G, says Fung. A few  carriers, like Verizon and Sprint, are currently building their 5G networks on medium-frequency airwaves. Check out a 2017 guide to candidate 5G technologies at IEEE Spectrum.
“The switch from 4G to 5G is going to be a bigger deal than 3G to 4G.”
How does the U.S. fare in the race to 5G?Countries around the world are vying to implement 5G networks. Earlier this month, three South Korean wireless carriers switched on a nationwide 5G network that currently covers 85 cities, while companies in China like Huawei are upping production of 5G technologies.
“What we have in the United States is not nearly as advanced,” Fung tells Science Friday. Verizon launched5G service in parts of Chicago and Minneapolis, and companies like Sprint say they are on track to switch on a 5G network by the end of the first half of the year in select cities.
“Part of the reason why the U.S. is so focused on trying to ‘win this race’ is not just because of the economic advantages, but also because if you have an economic lead you’re able to set the terms of debate about how this technology evolves—who’s in control, what kind of rules surrounding national security are wrapped up in this,” says Fung. “At a more abstract level, it’s essentially about control over the future of the internet.”

Further Reading

  • Read Brian Fung’s story on China’s Huawei and how it is competing with 5G companies in the U.S. on the Washington Post and find more of his reporting on 5G here.
  • Get a complete breakdown of 5G and the technologies involved through IEEE Spectrum’s guides, graphics, and videos
  • Read how skeptics say 5G might not be enough to support autonomous vehicles in EDN Network.
  • Read The Verge’s take on carriers’ hype for 5G.
  • Find out why 5G has rekindled the decades-old fight over cellular health risks in Motherboard.
  • Check out Undark’s reporting on the history of the health concerns of cell phone radiation.
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website:          https://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:        https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
Twitter:            @berkeleyprc
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)