Portland City Council May Ask FCC To Investigate Health Risks of 5G Networks (inverse.com) 175
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: Fearing unknown health risks, members of the City Council in Portland, Oregon, will vote Wednesday to oppose the rollout of 5G wireless networks. In a proposed resolution, Mayor Ted Wheeler, along with Commissioners Chloe Eudaly and Amanda Fritz, write that there's evidence suggesting wireless networks can cause health problems -- including cancer. They express concern that the Federal Communications Commission has not conducted enough research to demonstrate that 5G networks are safe, while at the same time prohibiting state and local governments from passing their own regulations on telecommunications technology. And while Wheeler, Eudaly, and Fritz are correct about the FCC's power to dictate how state and local governments manage wireless networks, the connection between 5G networks and cancer is a lot more complicated than they say it is.
"There is evidence to suggest that exposure to radio frequency emissions generated by wireless technologies could contribute to adverse health conditions such as cancer," reads the proposed resolution. This evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The final results of this study, published in November 2018, showed a strong association between the type of radiation used for mobile phone signals and certain types of cancerous tumors in lab rats. But that's where the situation gets tough. The NTP study, which took place over 10 years and involved exposing more than 7,000 rats and mice to radio-frequency radiation, focused on signals used by wireless technology under the 2G and 3G standards. It's nearly impossible to say whether these results will apply to 5G hardware.
"Since the available research doesn't address 5G, the Portland City Council's resolution demands that the FCC embark on another such research project to assess the health effects of 5G," reports Inverse. "Presumably, it would take just as long to conduct another study on the hypothesized connection between 5G and cancer, but by that time, the industry will almost certainly have moved on to 6G -- or 7G."
"There is evidence to suggest that exposure to radio frequency emissions generated by wireless technologies could contribute to adverse health conditions such as cancer," reads the proposed resolution. This evidence comes from a large-scale study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The final results of this study, published in November 2018, showed a strong association between the type of radiation used for mobile phone signals and certain types of cancerous tumors in lab rats. But that's where the situation gets tough. The NTP study, which took place over 10 years and involved exposing more than 7,000 rats and mice to radio-frequency radiation, focused on signals used by wireless technology under the 2G and 3G standards. It's nearly impossible to say whether these results will apply to 5G hardware.
"Since the available research doesn't address 5G, the Portland City Council's resolution demands that the FCC embark on another such research project to assess the health effects of 5G," reports Inverse. "Presumably, it would take just as long to conduct another study on the hypothesized connection between 5G and cancer, but by that time, the industry will almost certainly have moved on to 6G -- or 7G."
Funny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What we need to is tell them is that WiFi and cellphones use infra-red light, just like their TV remote controls.
(technically true, 3.5GHz is definitely below red in the spectrum)
today on Slashdot: nothing to see here (Score:2)
Nothing to see here.
Cellphone radiation definitely doesn't cause cancer. Fankenfood is definitely good for us. There is definitely no back door in the electric voting system. Admission to the Ivy League is definitely not determined by bribery and favoritism.
No siree, definitely nothing to see here. Move along now!
Rates of cancer haven't increased (Score:5, Informative)
Think of all the new RF we've had in the past couple of decades with WiFi and cell towers absolutely everywhere.
What's happened to the rates of incidence of new cancer cases over that time? They're flat/down.
https://progressreport.cancer.... [cancer.gov]
I call BS.
Re:Rates of cancer haven't increased (Score:5, Informative)
During the cold war, radar operators/techs in Greenland and northern Canada used to stand in front of the transmitters to _warm_up_.
They're all dead now, tracked to the grave (which is the gold standard for population studies), they can see the increased cancer for all electronic techs (mostly from flux fumes) but no increase beyond that.
'Portlandia' is a documentary.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they stood right in the main beam. More likely they knew where a side lobe was.
The fact remains they, as a group, died at normal ages of the usual things.
Re: Rates of cancer haven't increased (Score:2)
most studies would confirm an increased risk of brain cancer for people sticking their heads into live microwave ovens.
I wouldn't be surprised if sticking your head into a live microwave oven actually decreased your chance of getting brain cancer.
Re: Rates of cancer haven't increased (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I tire of commentors being called out, by name, by those under AC accounts. I guess I shouldn't read at 0.
power, frequency, distance (Score:2)
the live-in TV transmitter engineers (in early days of TV, the transmitter engineers were housed at the tower site and had beds in the transmitter building because, tech infancy) pretty much died of brain cancer. but the power, frequency, distance rules of the FCC on radiation safety have changed, and it's not an issue now. obey and carry on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Rates of cancer haven't increased (Score:2)
They're uncertain about it to the same extent as they're uncertain about whether or not being bitten by a radioactive spider gives you super powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Random guy on Internet "calls BS" on major scientific/medical conundrum that the world's collective scientific establishment is still largely uncertain about. How about that.
No, "random guy on Internet" calls BS on a city council that demands that the FCC prove that something is safe before they'll allow it in their city, based on research that irradiated rats at levels much higher than any of them ever will be, using different frequencies, for a topic that is already preempted by federal regulation.
"Portlandia" was a TV show based on a very specific brand of reality practiced in one specific city. It's a fascinating place to visit, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer rates could be down for other reasons entirely, despite the populace getting more and more exposure to EMR.
Re: (Score:2)
So prove it. We can't simply avoid everything based on "it might be bad".
What about other health risks besides cancer? (Score:2)
Then you need to catch up on all the research. What people are finding is that with the high frequencies 5G uses, and all the information states within each signal element, the sheer number of bits being beamed right through your ineffective/obsolete skull into your brain is overwhelming. Physicists have concluded that the bits can be arrayed in a matrix of where each element's light frequency varies, and if you use 5G to provide more variance over time, users have reported their ocular sensors lo
I call BS on that city council (Score:2)
provided the RF density rules of the FCC are followed (power, frequency, distance) there is no demonstrated ill effects at all, whatsoever. the only ones at risk with 5G are folks in a safety harness way up the tower.
if you are going to be an idiot, and stand at a powered antenna staring down the waveguide, yeah, you win the Darwin award. that has been known for almost a century.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with 5G is it's not just "new cell towers with 5G equipment", though that's the initial rollout. There are addons to 5G that involve going all the way to 60GHz+ - the millimeter wave part of the standard. Here the signal is weak that you'll need a "tower" in every streetlight, but you'll have
Re: (Score:2)
I call youâ(TM)re a paid troll. Any rational individual should be able to understand that there are probably serious health concerns with this
Any rational individual should look at actual data and make an evaluation. The actual data collected over two decades suggests there is no concern whatsoever. To ignore the data and post unjustified concerns is to be "irrational" and "fearmongering".
Re: (Score:2)
You mean by the sun?
Re:Anti-Vax/Flat Earth Now 5G (Score:5, Informative)
There's nothing new about this. These are the people who say they're allergic to WiFi. A practicing engineer I occasionally used to work with had a wife who was "allergic to the radio signals emitted by smart utility meters", so they moved their whole family to a rural town in Alabama to get away from the smart meters that were rolling out in Houston. There have been documented cases of communities formally complaining about ill effects from the signals emitted by newly constructed cell towers in their area, only for them to find out that the towers hadn't even been turned on yet. The national radio quiet zone [wikipedia.org] in Virginia/West Virginia has become a haven for "RF-allergic" nutjobs in recent years.
The RF frequency might be different, but the complaints are the same. Might cause cancer...if you massively over-expose the subject for months at a time with no break. Might cause headaches, toothaches, backaches, or other aches...which seem to have nothing to do with whether the signal is actually present, but instead have more to do with when the person thinks the signal is present. Might cause fevers, rashes, or other reactions...which either continue regardless of the signal or else disappear once the person is given proper medication for their undiagnosed condition/moved to a controlled location away from the actual source of their problems.
The "research" these people are doing is in all the wrong places. They simply need to go back to textbooks and learn some basic statistics, physics, or biology, but instead they'll consult Facebook and "Doctor Google" for their answers.
Re: (Score:1)
The winning move would be to develop a vaccine against the effects of radiation...
Re: (Score:2)
Or get into the business of selling filters/protective clothing/amulets.
In the days when CRT monitors were common some people had them on their screens. I found them to be very effective - for indicating who the nutters in the office were without even talking to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Resonance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it seem possible [...]?
Skepticism is good, but this question actually just serves to highlight why I said that people need to study basic physics and biology instead of believing whatever they read online, since you should have already known that, no, it isn't possible. For everyone with skin and a brain housed safely in their skull, we can dismiss the notion out of hand without needing to involve a neurologist because 5G signals don't penetrate skin.
Now, of course, that might make you wonder whether it's possible for your skin t
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part of the doctor google is the completely over the top nature of the prognosis.
Me: My hand hurts . google, search "Hurt hand".
Google: you may have a sprain. or a pulled muscle. or horrible hand cancer which will eat your soul.
Me; oh no!
Re: in Soviet Russia ... (Score:2)
In Soviet America, cancer gives you 5G network!
Say isn't this the same city with anti-vaxxers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep looks like Portland citizens just don't believe real science. They don't like vaccines, [theguardian.com], so it follows that the same kind of faith-based "science" that claims all wireless signals cause cancer would be believed as well..
Re:Say isn't this the same city with anti-vaxxers? (Score:5, Insightful)
This would appear to support something I've suspected for a while now: That we seem to be hard-wired to reach conclusions based on faith. And that when people ditch faith in religion, it doesn't make them less "religious." They just put their faith into something else, be it anti-vaxx theories or 9/11 conspiracies or atheism. (Yes atheism is a faith. You cannot prove a negative, at least not without investigating every single possibility, so you cannot realistically prove there is no god. You can be agnostic without needing faith - uncertain or doubtful if there is a god. But to be atheist - convinced that there is no god - requires a leap of faith.)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes atheism is a faith. You cannot prove a negative, at least not without investigating every single possibility, so you cannot realistically prove there is no god. You can be agnostic without needing faith - uncertain or doubtful if there is a god. But to be atheist - convinced that there is no god - requires a leap of faith.
So you're sticking with agnosticism on Thor I assume? And Shiva? And Quetzalcoatl? Because you wouldn't want to make unjustified leaps of faith, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Atheism is a faith the same way that not having a bike is a type of bike. Atheists don't try to prove a negative, we just refuse to entertain proposed supernatural entities for whom there is absolutely no evidence.
Or are you saying that you are agnostic in regards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster [venganza.org].
Re: (Score:2)
(Yes atheism is a faith.
This just reminds me of that time a few years ago when people wanted to start an "Atheist Church."
Re: (Score:2)
Atheism is a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Say isn't this the same city with anti-vaxxers (Score:2)
I could construct an argument that agnosticism takes an "absolute positions on something that is not falsifiable". The fact that you can construct an argument says nothing about whether or not that argument is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved his point. Congratulations!
Re: (Score:3)
corporate scientism (Score:1)
But muh SCIENCE(tm)!!!1!!
I, for one, totally and without doubt trust the academic circle jerk process to reveal God's one and holy TRUTH to us humble ignorant peons. The claim that academic circle jerking is substantially directed and controlled by suitcases full of cash from the big pharma and big wireless is simply UNPOSSIBLE.
In conclusion I say: let's just trust our all-devouring corporate overlords and their fine mad scientists! What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
At least the big pharma and corporate overlords EXIST.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood movie plot: immunologist snaps and starts spreading measles in Portland.
FCC: "No" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's simple (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the same frequencies as 4G LTE, plus millimeter wave, which is also non-ionizing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ionizing versus non-ionizing kind of misses the point; it promotes the false assumption that ionization damage is the only form of DNA damage that can potentially cause cancer.
Sub-millimeter-wave radiation has been proven, under certain circumstances, to be able to break the chemical bonds that hold DNA together. Most of the time, this has no effect on the host organism, because your body is designed to repair such minor
Re: (Score:2)
Above a certain frequency, the waves are small enough to penetrate and hit DNA.
Below a certain frequency, those waves have macro-effects. They cause molecules to wobble and heat up. Infra-red is the highest-energy known for this in particular, as it's just below visible light in terms of energy (visible light is shorter wavelength).
What? You didn't know? Light and EM are the same thing. They're both radio waves. Your wifi antenna does the same thing as a light bulb; so does an X-ray machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I know this. Everyone who didn't sleep through high school science knows this. None of what you said contradicts any of what I said. Those mechanical effects have been proven to affect DNA, i.e. ionization is not the only risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but it's more like saying something that's 10C won't harm you, your body is about 36C, and something that's 70C will burn your skin; and someone says temperatures of 25C may be harmful.
Those mechanical effects are heat. The volume of particle exposure becomes the defining characteristic. Ionizing radiation can cause damage by individual particles (a collision can remove an electron from a molecule, thus breaking a molecular bond), while non-ionizing radiation can cause warming and thus can cau
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantically, yes, insofar as molecular motion is heat. :-)
And at the resonant frequencies of the various physical structures, or at sufficiently close subharm
Re: (Score:2)
And at the resonant frequencies of the various physical structures, or at sufficiently close subharmonics thereof, at a microscopic level, non-ionizing radiation can also cause enough flexing and stretching to break the covalent bonds that hold together strands of DNA. That was what the study on THz EM concluded.
Oh for...really?
At subharmonics, much of the energy is lost: a super-harmonic (e.g. 2x) will oscillate back and forth because the wave amplitude is about 0 at the end, so approximately 0 destructive interference occurs as the vibration reflects back. Basically your wave propagates and lifts the material in one direction, then snaps back in the other direction; at a harmonic, the reflecting wave is pulling along in the reverse direction as it went in, helping to accelerate the process in sync, causing am
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it has been demonstrated that DNA can be damaged by resonance [oup.com]. And that analysis involved MRI systems, which operate way down in the MF, HF, and VHF bands.
For a counterargument, being hit by a bullet at 1 MPH doesn't ever kill you, because it bounces off your ski
Re: (Score:2)
Those studies were on cell phones in the sub-2GHz band.
Humans are routinely exposed to over half a kilowatt in the 300GHz-430,000GHz band.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the bars on your phone. Those bars translate into tiny fractions [powerfulsignal.com] of a mW. Comparing favorably against the amount of electricity your own muscles give off when flexing. The inverse square law pretty much guarantees that people will be safe from the towers. Now, cellphones TRANSMIT as high as 3W, but as I understand it, the proposal isn't to end existing cell phone use, so if they cause cancer, they will probably do it on 4g as easily as 5g. There is 0 reason to ban the equipment from being put i
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. A single bar translates to a fraction of a mW, but four bars can be anywhere from there up to a few hundred watts, depending on how close you are to the tower and how large a radius the tower is covering.
Also not true. With 5G service, towers are sprinkled in population centers. Millimeter wave EM won't penet
Re: Well that's simple (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are risks (Score:1)
Higher bandwidth with lower latency will lead to more interactive apps expecting real time input. This will increase injuries from pedestrians walking where they shouldn't, stopping where it is not safe, etc. This will also lead to traffic accidents where drivers cannot pause the texting until the next red light.
Oh, you meant "Do microwaves give people cancer?" *sigh*
This is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why telecom companies install towers and then leave them unplugged for a month or so.
They wait for all the nutjobs to come out of the woodwork, complaining about all sorts of psychosomatic ailments from headaches to bunions, just to show how idiotic they are.
At this point the anti-wireless lobby need to all be handed copies of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and be required to take a quiz on what they learned. The only good thing about these whackos is that they at least cannot make the world more dangerous for everyone else the way those idiot anti-vaxxers do.
While I agree some studies should be done since 5G works at a different frequency range, I'm not about to go crazy over it. If organisms weren't designed to live with constant exposure to various forms of radiation, we wouldn't have evolved on a planet with a sun.
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Funny)
The issue here is that no matter how many times they cry it, there will be no wolf. It's more like the "boy who cried sasquatch!"
It's well known that 5G causes ... (Score:2)
... autism because vaccination.
How about Portland pays for the study? (Score:3)
Federal agencies would get very little done if they agreed to do every study request from every piss-ant city.
How about Portland gets one of its state universities to do the study, and on the city's dime. I would also suggest donations from carriers, but that might taint the results.
Portland, OR management is VERY poor. (Score:2)
There is this huge thing called the Sun. It emits ALL wavelengths. Cell phone towers limit their radiation because they don't want to interfere with the next "cell".
Portland, OR city management is VERY poor. One story: Portland's form of government fails residents in almost every way thinkable, report finds. [oregonlive.com] (Feb. 10, 2019)
Re: (Score:2)
Portland, OR city managers who have never been outside during the day may find this surprising:
They've been outside during the day plenty (they aren't vampires, you know).
There is this huge thing called the Sun.
Oh, the Sun. It's been rumored to be up there, but since it's impossible to tell through all the clouds. the point is moot.
Why study rats when we have huge scale human data? (Score:2)
So there is a study that says that rats don't like being microwaved. The problem is that we are not rats, and we use reasonably powered cell phones, we don't receive extreme doses like these rats do.
At the same time there is an other study doing a statistical analysis on millions of people over many years and found no correlation between cancer rates and cell phone use.
So unless you are interested in the well being of rats in a microwave oven, why choose the less relevant study?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the US Air Force study from 1990 on radar with pretty low intensity RFR/microwaves (2,450 MHz pulsed radiation with SAR 0.15-0.4 W/kg) found increased incidence of cancer compared to the control group.
Some details from Air Force study: "primary cancers were detected in the exposed rats 3.6 times more often than in control
The study is not replicated yet nor representative (Score:4, Informative)
The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted for local tissues. They were full body exposed to these levels for 10 minutes every 10 minutes.
If you artificially heat things up (10W/kg) they tend to get burnt and develop cancer. Also female rats didn't seem to have this effect, only male rats and they only deviated slightly from controls with the majority of male rats living longer due to not developing kidney problems later in life.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
It makes me feel safer to know that you only sort of see an effect even after cranking up the levels far beyond the maximum legal limits and having constant exposure to the radiation.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, to point to those studies and say they PROVE that cell phones cause cancer is like pointing to people who died in a fire and say they PROVE that you shouldn't heat up your house.
No science (Score:1, Offtopic)
So sue (Score:2)
Hope springs eternal for lawyers drooling over potential class action lawsuits.
One of those, and your law firm's principals are liquid, as Gordon Gecko might say.
Who avoids mobile phones? (Score:2)
We have been over this NTP study. (Score:3)
We have been over this study, an article I submitted about it last year was discussed at length and the general conclusion was the study really showed that generally it was safe, but if they generated enough end points, you could get some statistically significant effects.
1. That is known as p-hacking and is recognized as not a best practice.
2. The effects that did appear, were not dose dependent so likely the result of p-hacking.
I think in a few of their end points, the exposure was shown to be protective, that is how you know the p-hacking basically identified some randomness, but the cohort was so small, it had statistical significance.
Proven ill effects (Score:3)
Cell phone transmissions make city councils nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
City councils make cell phone transmissions nuts...
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-science at both the right and left extremes (Score:2)
I have recently found that there is an anti-science prevailing attitude at both extreme ends of the political spectrum.
A very left wing Facebook "friend" recently posted pictures of a book burning party which include books like Dawkin's Selfish Gene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Anti-science at both the right and left extrem (Score:2)
No one likes being authoritatively told they are wrong about something.
Oh, you're so wrong about that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, but left out the part where they self flagellate, admit their failures, and now belong to the "good" group of upstanding people who CARE.
5G brings higher rate of exposure due to distances (Score:2)
The RF exposure is far higher with closer distances, so this will be different than cell towers, etc.
If there is nothing to fear, then why would people oppose testing for safety?
There is precedence in going ahead with ignorant assumptions about safety and learning that is wrong later, so that's why people are asking for testing. In the 50s X-rays for shoe sizing started to be a thing, until they learned of the risks. There were also proposals to warm the people, not the air, by microwaves inside the b
Re: (Score:2)
The RF exposure is far higher with closer distances, so this will be different than cell towers, etc.
This is unlikely. 5G microcells will be much lower power than large 3G cells. Plus your phone in your pocket will be able to transmit at lower power levels.
Repeat after me... (Score:2)
The Black Shakes (Score:2)
I'd suggest everyone go watch Johnny Mnemonic (starring Keanu Reeves, 1995). Obviously a factual movie, it portrays the struggles of a dystopian society drowning in RF pollution, resulting in a malady known as the Black Shakes, and only Ice-T knows the cure.
On a more serious note, it's always about dosage - whether medicine or poison. Is 5G dangerous? Probably not in the beginning. But when we're drowning in it 20 years from now, the answer may be different. Would you be comfortable a 5G cell tower mou
Re: (Score:2)
It just doesn't work like that. if you have 100 1W transmitters running different signals it is not the same as a 100W transmitter. A hundred people having conversations in a restaurant is not 100 times louder than a single person. Its just harder to understand.
By the way millions already have this its called a 802.11ac router.
ignorant (Score:2)
Has anyone told them there are already communication systems operating in those bands already?