Talk:5G/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Samsung Galaxy S10+.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Samsung Galaxy S10+.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Remove the mention, that Wired labels certain claims as conspiracy theory. It is basically a straw man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:802:0:340:C371:1584 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Improve the readability of the health risk section. It is just a wall of quotes. Instead it should give people a clear message, that many scientists claim that further research is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:802:0:340:C371:1584 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

DELETE the word "notoriously" which constitutes an opinion and cannot be proved or disproved.

In the section Political opposition / Surveillance:

Change "A report published by the European Commission and European Agency for Cybersecurity details the security issues surrounding 5G while notoriously trying to avoid mentioning Huawei." to "A report published by the European Commission and European Agency for Cybersecurity details the security issues surrounding 5G while trying to avoid mentioning Huawei." Patra777 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 21:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

i want to edit dead links Mykoshurtech (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Stating what "5G" actually means as an acronym

The article opens with "5G is the fifth generation of wireless communications technologies supporting cellular data networks." but nowhere defines precisely what "5G" stands for as an acronym. Can someone find a non-controversial source for the definition please that can be added to the lede? Noting as this was the mentioned in a comedy panel show this week as the "G" in "5G" was something nobody understood. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not an acronym but a name given to what is called the fifth generation of mobile technologies.[1] Really, it's the popular tag for technology conforming to IMT-2020, see here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The current introduction is a totally inadequate mess. It needs to be improved to explain that:

5G is the planned successor to the 3G and 4G cellular networks which provide connectivity to current cellphones. Like its predecessors it is a cellular network in which the service area is divided into small geographical areas called cells. All wireless devices in a cell are connected to the network by a local antenna in the cell. The main advantage of the new network is that it will have greater bandwidth, giving faster download speeds. Due to the increased bandwidth, it is expected that the new network will not just serve cellphones like existing cellular networks but also be used as a general internet provider for laptops and other computers, competing with ISPs. The millimeter waves used in some 5G networks have a shorter range than the microwaves used in current cellular networks, so the size of 5G cells is smaller than current network cells, around a city block in size.

A lot (probably a majority) of the readers coming to this page are going to be general readers who just want a nontechnical explanation of what 5G is. This is more important than the date of 5G rollout in Uruguay. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

The 5G communication range extends within the order of 1e9 Hz. This is well within the Radio Frequency (RF) range. Before proceeding further, remember that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is expressed by the Planck-Einstein relation given by

$E=h\nu$ where $E$ is the energy of the electromagnetic wave $h$ is the Planck's Constant $\nu$ is the frequency of the electromagnetic wave.

This was just a digression to show that the energy of the wave is purely and wholly contained in the value of its frequency. Additionally the power density of electromagnetic radiation is also often used. The ANSI/IEEE recommended exposure for the public is $1.2mW/Cm^{2}$ (see fundamental dimensions for units). There is clearly no plausible harm arising from the exposure of the RF frequencies used in the 5G transmission. 202.91.87.170 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What specific edit do you want to make? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede needs to summarize article; tag added

The lede has not been updated as the article has expanded. It's nothing but a bare-bones, overly technical couple of sentences that in no way "provide an accessible overview" of the body. WP:MOSINTRO petrarchan47คุก 20:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's mainly a wild collection of facts without a clear structure. Why is the number of Korean phones so important? Why list the number of Chinese base stations? Why are these without comparison to other numbers?

The first sentence is okay (maybe add "telecommunication"). After that I would have expected a comparison to previous technologies. What makes 5G different? How does this differ between low frequency bands and higher frequency bands? Are the new 5G base stations and phones using the higher frequency bands, or just the lower frequency bands where there is not much to gain? --mfb (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a horrible article. No, the first sentence isn't okay; it doesn't even have the elementary information that these are cellular networks! Talk about WP:VAGUELEAD. Can you imagine your grandmother coming to this article to get information about what 5G is? And the rest of the article is a chaotic pile of promotional rollout info, acronyms and telecom jargon. I added the "Overview" section that originally had an explanation in nontechnical language of the new technologies, and some comparisons to previous 4G technology like mfb wants, but it was eviscerated.

I wonder if many of the editors adding the jargony promotional rollout information that is clogging up this article are working for the provider corporations, or their public relations firms? Most of the article should be scrapped and a more reader-friendly version written. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mfb: Just wanted to say your recent rewrite of the lead paragraph looks like a great start! --Chetvorno^TALK 16:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is a hot mess. It needs to be rewritten with a cohesive narrative. Some of it could maybe be broken off into separate articles, such as the Availability section.  DiscantX 05:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rewrote it. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The 5G Protocol May Still Be Vulnerable to IMSI Catchers

Could someone take a look? I don't have enough background knowledge to understand how to include this information.

• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/5g-protocol-may-still-be-vulnerable-imsi-catchers
• https://boingboing.net/2019/01/29/authentication-and-key-agreeme.html

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Succession-box at bottom of page has omission

4G is correctly identified as 5G's "predecessor". But 6G isn't listed as 5G's successor. Donald Trump tweeted just recently that he wants 6G technology, so it's not like it doesn't exist or something.2604:2000:C682:2D00:2813:62EC:E222:A7F3 (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Seriously? Trump tweets about some future technology he knows nothing about, therefore it exists? MrDemeanour (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be talked about as a "successor" for one reason: It barely exists 67.149.244.203 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello admin,

I am a passionate blogger want to explore articles related to technology and IoT. Kindly allow me to edit articles on Wikipedia for grammars, information and other improvements. Junaidanwerpk (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Article has a WP:SILVERLOCK until 11 August. There are many articles within this topic space that are open to editing from new editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sourcing / POV-pushing / edit-warring

Got a problem with Delerium2k repeatedly trying to insert unreliable content into the article (e.g.[2]), invoking "censorship" when it is removed. Note WP:Biomedical information of Wikipedia needs to be backed by reliable sources, and a six-year old primary source ain't that. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn Are you disputing that the results of this research are valid? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233276/ If not, are you disputing that the findings are relevant to biological health? Are you disputing that the authors design their methodology with reference to WHO exposure limits? Are you arguing a finding from 2014 is somehow less true? The only consensus in the RF community that I'm aware of is that there is no consensus regarding biological effects of 'non-ionizing' radiation. What's dubious are op eds and blog articles. Meanwhile peer reviewed research is pulled... living in backward land Delerium2k (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote, the source is unreliable per WP:MEDRS. Let's stick to reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've shared both secondary and primary published sources, both are being pulled. Why? Delerium2k (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and you were applying editorial spin about "some scientists". Did you even read the other editors' edit summaries? Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Delerium2k: Your source seems to be a research paper on the effects of millimeter waves on leech nerves. Wikipedia requires primary sources to be backed up by secondary sources (WP:PSTS). The paper is about an in vitro experiment on animal neurons and mentions no conclusions or applications of its results to human health, violating WP:MEDANIMAL. In addition the sentence you are supporting: "It has been demonstrated that commercially-relevant exposure to Extremely high frequency (millimeter bands) narrows and suppresses action potentials in individual neurons.", fails to mention that the neurons are leech neurons, not human neurons. So your sentence would seem to be unverified, deceptive, as well as a very tenuous WP:SYNTHESIS on your part. Cheers, --Chetvorno^TALK 20:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: I concede the study does not meet secondary requirements. It is a strange setup where primary sci research is lower on the totem pole than mass media broadbrush articles like the ones cited. The idea a consensus is reached among experts on this topic is Laughable and it hurts wiki community's credibility to imply otherwise. --- Yes, it's an animal model which shows very clear neuronal dampening. Not worthy of acknowledgement? Delerium2k (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

1) Science works by a process of consensus, so particularly in fields like health, primary research results are low on the credibility totem pole until they are shown to be reproducible and appear in secondary sources and are accepted by the scientific community, from which reliable "broadbrush mass media articles" get their information. 2) Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, we don't report unconfirmed results. 3)Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw conclusions from sources, that is called WP:synthesis. Your conclusion that this experiment has applicability to human use of cellphones is a huge unwarranted synthesis not supported by the authors, particularly considering that the penetration depth of millimeter waves in the human body is less than a millimeter, they are mostly absorbed in the skin. 4) In addition to being verifiable, content in WP must be given WP:due weight. An enormous amount of research has been done over the last 60 years on the effects of microwaves on the human body, and without reliable sources saying it is WP:notable mentioning one tiny experiment is WP:undue weight, that's called WP:cherrypicking. 5) On the subject of consensus, the worldwide agency which sets safety standards for electromagnetic wave exposure, the ICNIRP, just completed a 6 year review of its exposure limits, in which it looked at dozens of controlled studies on millimeter wave exposure, and it concluded that 5G is safe [3]. Reports by other standards organizations, the WHO and IEEE say 5G is safe. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Health concerns

Heading changed from "'Health concerns' tag - please clarify" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." It isn't immediately clear what this is referring to, and I'm leaning towards removing the tag unless this can be clarified. petrarchan47คุก 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A summary of all protests, if there are multiple, may be appropriate. Writing a paragraph for each demonstration worldwide would be giving each protest undue weight, whether there are many or not. I have removed such a paragraph in Special:Diff/917492497. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be counterpoint in this this 'Health Concerns' section? There are distinct and pointed counterpoints and rebuttals to most of the concerns cited and I am wondering of it would acceptable be for myself or other editors to post any well-sourced rebuttals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.190.228 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this probably is best addressed in the main article: Wireless device radiation and health. 5G § Health concerns should be pared back to summarize Wireless device radiation and health. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The opening statement in this paragraph that "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe" is problematic to say the least. Furthermore, the article referred too to fund this statement claims rather the opposite: "What about risk of 5G? Obviously, we won’t know that until it is actually rolled out and in widespread use."

There is no proof of where the "scientific consensus" is. Furthermore, there is a significant number of peer-reviewed papers arguing that health risks cannot be ruled out and that the precautionary principle should be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedericoCeratto (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are two article that elaborate more deeply on 5G and health concerns:

- 5G wireless telecommunications expansion Public health and environmental implications: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161

- Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.232.82 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just flat out wrong that the Novella source claims the "opposite" of "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe". It says that explicitly. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The health concerns around 5G go much, much further, wider and deeper than some mistake by Dr Curry in 1990.

Example 1: The UK government (and others) rely on a report from the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) to assure us that 5G is safe. This report was seriously criticised by Dr. Sarah Starkey, a British neuroscientist who takes the report apart, not only on scientific grounds, but also because the people at AGNIR who wrote the report were seriously compromised. Her conclusion: “Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.” Oh, and shortly after this report was released by the AGNIR back in 2012, the organisation was quietly disbanded. Dr Starkey's full report can be found here...

Example 2: The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation. The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. One of the many stand-out conclusions from this report is, “Public safety standards are 1,000 – 10,000 or more times higher than levels now commonly reported in mobile phone base station studies to cause bioeffects.”

Example 3: SwissRe, the second largest reinsurers on the planet, state on their own website that “As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.” They acknowledge the potential risks; does this not suggest that there is more to these health concerns than tin-pot conspiracy theory?

Example 4: There are many more papers, petitions and letters from qualified, tenured, published scientists and medical researchers than are commonly cited. Here are just a few; ◆ 2018: The European Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) Report. The report identified 14 emerging issues to bring to the attention of the Commission services including 5G, E-cigarette and chronic diseases. They prioritized 5G impact as “high” and concludes that “the lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences.” ◆ Scientific Appeal on 5G To the European Commission - Over 250 scientists and doctors from 35 countries. ◆ 5G Appeal to Stop Deployment on Earth and Space - There are 201,383 signatories from 202 nations and territories as of February 14th, 2020. ◆ Bund signs petition to stop 5G in Hamburg, Thursday 13 February 2020. ◆ 2019 German Doctors Delegation - 70 doctors from Baden-Württemberg have signed the open letter to Prime Minister Kretschmann. The doctors’ demand on Kretschmann is to minimize exposure to electromagnetic fields. ◆ 2019 Hippocrates Electrosmog Appeal of Belgium - The Appeal has been signed by over 347 medical doctors, nurses and health professionals in Belgium. ◆ The Pancyprian Medical Association and Cyprus National Committee on the Environment and Child Health position paper on 5G is entitled “The Risks to Public Health from the Use of the 5G Network” and was sent to the Cyprus Parliamentary Committees on Environment and Health. The position paper is based on the historic Nicosia Declaration of 2017. The position paper emphasizes the lack of safety studies, the increase in exposure and the potential interactions of the network with other telecommunication networks. The paper also highlights the lack of a reliable method to measure the radiation levels in real world situations - an issue that was raised in the 2019 European Parliament Report “5G Deployment State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia” which states that, “the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.” ◆ 2019: Order of the Physicians of Turin: Resolution to suspend 5G. The Conference ”Electromagnetic waves, effects on people’s health?” organized by the Environmental Commission of the Order of Physicians of Turin was held in October 2019. “It is therefore requested that the Precautionary Principle be applied and the experiments be suspended at least until one is able to measure the electromagnetic field actually produced – waiting for the competent bodies to acknowledge the results of the scientific studies for the possible reformulation of the legal limits for long-term exposure of the population.”

There is so much more besides.

Example 5: telecom executives were being grilled over safety by the US Senate Commerce Committee in February 2019, and openly admitted that the industry knew of no studies proving the safety of 5G; that no risk assessments had been conducted (or, at least, none were made available to the Committee), and the industry was planning on spending precisely zero dollars on any such studies in the future.

Unless Wikipedia is being somehow coerced into toeing the line and burying all of this (and much more besides) then the whole topic of 5G safety needs a serious rethink.

References

Lighteater (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I regret that to even hint that Wikipedia is being coerced to take a particular line speaks volumes as to the quality of the arguments posted. I suggest you reconsider the quality of what you have posted — a typical compendium of items from the anti-radiowave and anti-5G world — starting with BioInitiative Report (please do read the WP article). --papageno (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

papageno: I agree. The ICNIRP, the standards organization for electromagnetic exposure, just completed a comprehensive study concluding that 5G is safe. As detailed in The health hazard that isn't, New York Times, the controversy was started by a single erroneous study in 2000. The article already has sufficient content on "concerns" about 5G's safety. "Concerns" do not have the same weight as controlled scientific studies, and it is deceptive to draw a WP:false balance between them.--Chetvorno^TALK 07:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lighteater: On your accusation of Wikipedia "coercion": Psychologists say a major sign of "conspiracy thinking" is if you react to evidence against your pet theory by expanding the "conspiracy" - "Yup, Wikipedia is involved too!" --Chetvorno^TALK 07:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please allow me to respectfully address the points raised.

1. My comment about Wikipedia may have been ill-judged. I wasn’t suggesting it is being coerced. I was merely making the point that this topic is being massively censored, right across the free world, and I wouldn’t want to see Wikipedia follow the same line. The censorship bears more examination. I can’t think of another topic that has been so severely censored in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Holocaust deniers. Even climate change deniers get free reign! And while there is overwhelming evidence FOR the Holocaust, and FOR climate change, the evidence FOR 5G being demonstrably safe is scant at best, and yet discussion on it is being shut down as heavily as discussions on the reality of the Holocaust. That alone should give us pause for thought. In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill wrote, “To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.”

2. I deliberately included the BioInitiative Report as one of the examples. I know it’s perhaps the weakest of the five I offered here (five of many, I might add). I had, of course, considered the Wikipedia page on it, and even there, you will see the comment, from the Indian Council of Medical Research, saying, “However, the evidence given in the report cannot be ignored and hence, need further investigation in this area.” (Emphasis mine).

3. The critical focus in the comments here so far on the BioInitiative Report reveals a lack of focus on, (or an ignoring of), the other examples. I remind you that Swiss Re are specifically warning of the potential claims for health impairments may come with a ‘long latency’. It’s their entire business to identify risk! In what Universe is it a good idea to ignore them?

4. Can we also consider, for a moment, the scientific voices speaking out on this issue? The EHT link (Example 4) has over a thousand scientists, across the world, putting together many papers and petitions. There are several hundred signatories here https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal. All of these people (with possibly a handful of exceptions) are qualified, are experienced, work in the field, have peer-reviewed publishing histories, have jobs, salaries, families, reputations to protect; are we really saying that ALL these people are prepared to risk everything in support of a “conspiracy theory”?

5. Can we agree to drop the “conspiracy theory” term from this discussion? It’s old, lame, and relatively meaningless now. There have been so many so-called conspiracy theories from the past that are now accepted as historical fact that it’s simply not a term that stacks up anymore. As one relatively recent example, I was writing about Iraq back in 2003. Any assertions back then that Saddam had no WMDs, and had no connection to 9/11, were labelled as conspiracies (because these assertions went against the officially constructed narrative). We all now know how that turned out. There are many other examples, but this is not the time nor the place.

6. Can we agree, also, that science makes mistakes? Deep breath – thalidomide, tobacco, asbestos, DDT, tainted blood products, the swine flu vaccination, I could go on. Science, by definition, is not perfect, and that will be true on both sides of the 5G controversy. The most worrying element in all of this is the censorship, where the 5G-is-perfectly-safe camp is attempting to silence the we-don’t-know-5G-is-safe camp. See Point 1 above.

7. ::papageno: cites the ICNIRP. This is a direct quote from them: 'Only established effects were used as the basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established, and so these guidelines are based on short-term, immediate health effects such as stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles, shocks and burns caused by touching conducting objects, and elevated tissue temperatures resulting from absorption of energy during exposure to EMF. In the case of potential long-term effects of exposure, such as an increased risk of cancer, ICNIRP concluded that available data are insufficient to provide a basis for setting exposure restrictions, although epidemiological research has provided suggestive, but unconvincing, evidence of an association between possible carcinogenic effects.' In a similar vein to TALK’s correct assertion that concerns do not have the same weight as controlled scientific studies, that phrase, “suggestive, but unconvincing evidence” is weird. What is convincing or not is so decidedly subjective that no scientific body will ever make this a basis for a decision.

8. Furthermore, the ICNIRP is a heavily conflicted organisation. Michael Repacholi remains it’s Emiratus Chair, despite having multiple close links to interested industries, such as power and telecoms, for years There are many more examples, but this body is not the independent, scientifically sound bringer of truth that they make themselves out to be.

9. I’m struck by the fact that the exposure guidelines only seem to apply to adult humans. What about babies? Toddlers? Pregnant women? The elderly? Those with pre-existing conditions? Do we know 5G won’t mess with the ability of birds to navigate, or bats to feed, or bees to communicate directions to each other? What are the potential unintended consequences of the 5G rollout? We don’t know. Why? Because the precautionary principle, which is essentially what most of the scientific voices being raised are calling for, is being ignored.

10. Finally – and to slightly expand on the topic – the ‘suspected’ arson attacks on cell phone towers seem highly unlikely. I visited a tower recently, and it was surrounded by an 8-foot-high chain-link face topped with razor wire. Not only does an arsonist have to get over or through that, while dodging the CCTV cameras, s/he also has to get their fire-setting equipment in, too. Then, they are faced with an entirely steel structure! How does one set fire to steel? There’s cabling, yes, but it’s all inside secure steel strong boxes with ‘High Voltage - Danger of Death’ signs on them. It’s going to take a pretty committed and expert arsonist to set one of these things alight! In the US, however, there are lots of reports of towers catching fire, and the main causes given are overheating of equipment, improper cooling, and lightning strikes. These seem much more likely causes.

I make no apologies for the lengthy discussion here. Nor am I wedded to the idea that 5G is ‘bad’ (or ‘good’, for that matter!). I just don’t want us sleep-walking into another Silent Spring scenario. And regardless of the eventual truth that emerges, this heavy censorship around this issue cannot be allowed to stand. We’re meant to live in free countries with freedom of speech built into our DNA. Nothing in this debate can be labelled as hate-speech, so let the debate play out in the open. Lighteater (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. By those, the scientific consensus is that 5G is safe, while there most certainly are conspiracy theories out there claiming it's hazardous in all kinds of ways. When and if the sources changes, so will Wikipedia, but right now we need to present the mainstream view prominently, to be neutral, because that is a core aim of the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I respect the fact that you have experience here that is both broader and deeper than mine, and I couldn't agree with you more regarding the key importance of neutrality here. However, are we saying that SwissRe is an unreliable source? Or the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee? Or the telecom executives sitting before that committee (in the clip I provided in Example 5 above) who admit that the industry has conducted no risk assessments and have no plans to do so? Surely you must agree that these are reliable sources, even leaving aside the hundreds of PhDs who are openly signing their names to petitions to apply the precautionary principle?

Furthermore, let me return to the issue of climate change, where there has been similar controversy raging for years. Wikipedia has a climate change page (of course) AND an equally chunky page on climate change denial. So on that issue, we are presenting both sides of the coin, despite the fact that a) there is ample evidence for climate change, some of it going back thousands of years through ice core samples and the like, and b) most experts who deny climate change tend to be funded by Big Oil, Big Coal and so on. With 5G, we almost have a mirror situation, where a) there is precious little evidence for the safety of 5G (as the telecom execs admit to ) and b) most experts and bodies that claim 5G is safe and set the radiation limits (ICNIRP, AGNIR) are demonstrably conflicted.

If your argument against highlighting the genuine 5G concerns that are out there is to stand, then the climate change denial page should be removed entirely. If our neutral stance is to be maintained, then 5G, an equally controversial and global issue, should be treated in the same way, with a page dedicated to the people, the studies, the voices that are opposed to the rollout that is currently being rushed through while being protected by global censorship.

It's worth noting that few of the qualified folks voicing their concerns about 5G are opposed to the rollout per se. They are simply saying that we don't yet know enough about the implications of blanketing the planet in a new set of frequencies from millions of cells on our DNA, immune systems and overall health, let alone any effects on the natural world that is already under huge stress from our many other activities, and therefore the precautionary principle, which has been around and widely accepted for decades, should be applied in the case of 5G. Lighteater (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

References

If 5G conspiracy theories becomes a big topic like climate denial, in time it may well break out into its own article. For now it's better here I think. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to summarize accepted knowledge as found in high-quality sources. When we look at look at such sources on the 5G health "debate" they tell us we have science on one side, and all kinds of error on the other. Hence, we report that. We'd need a super-strength source - on a par with the WHO say - to start airing the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that 5G is a health hazard. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Tidying

I've made some tidying to the out of control health section, this needs to be good and sharp in these times.

A. Health concerns directly relating to medical effects -> go to Wireless device radiation and health. This page gives a complete breakdown of the issues for any wireless tech.
B. New section - 'Political Opposition', which has the following subsections:
1. Surveillance - related to opposition on grounds of concern about data interception, both public/governmental e.g. Huawei issue
2. Environmental impact - masts blocking views, damaging landmarks, etc...
3. Security concerns - related to opposition due security flaws in the technology
4. Health concerns - reporting public opposition to 5G WITHOUT going into the whys and wherefors

Surv/Sec could be merged, however the issues are not quite the same Jw2036 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The surveillance concerns go well beyond the possibility of data interception. Citing the example of Huawei narrows the surveillance topic down to the possibility of the Chinese government (in the Huawei example) using the technology to spy on other countries by building some sort of back door into the 5G infrastructure. While this is certainly a danger, the more immediate and local concern is the huge potential that the 5G network creates for mass surveillance of citizens in any country, both by their own government and by big, data-driven corporations. For example, the Amazon doorbell allows Amazon to log every keystroke of the related app on your phone, every time the doorbell is pressed, and so on. Smart meters can track family movements through the house by proxy as they record the precise times and duration of the use of every switch and socket in the house. Self-driving cars have 15 outward-looking cameras on them, to enable safe operation; these cameras are such a rich source of data as the car drives around that there's a possibility now being discussed of giving these cars away, en masse, for free. In China, the additional bandwidth offered by 5G is allowing mass real-time facial recognition to be deployed across all major cities. These are some examples of the surveillance concerns that are of much more immediate impact on individuals, and are in addition to the international spying possibilities that have driven some countries to ban Huawei from part or all of their networks. Lighteater (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see concerns about surveillance as having much to with 5G, you can backdoor 4G just the same, and real-time facial recognition is usually deployed using fixed cameras so it might save time upgrading cable runs, it might allow faster uploads of data from cars, but it does not necessary enable anything that other high speed networks can't. All the other things you talk about could be accomplished with dial up. Just about all technology has a dual use for surveillance, not to get off topic but trying to stop the technology as opposed to the use of it for surveillance seems backwards. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Availability by country

Would it make sense to fork this section over to a different article? It gets far more specific than seems necessary for the main article. --Avg W (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. --papageno (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, have split this section off into Availability of 5G by country. Anyone have ideas for a better title for this article? – Thjarkur (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Infrastructure

I reverted a few edits that appeared to focus on fear related to other countries and China providing the technology. It may belong in the article in other forms perhaps, but seemed undue as-is and used sources that could be considered controversial for such claims. I also couldn't really verify some of the material with the first citation. —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

More explanation on the Jargon

Hello More explanation for the technology JargonYuxin L- (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

In Health section, replace:

They cite unproven concerns over the 10 to 20 billion connections to the 5G network and the subsequent increase in RF-EMF exposure affecting the global populace constantly.

to

They cite concerns over the 10 to 20 billion connections to the 5G network and the subsequent increase in RF-EMF exposure affecting the global populace constantly.

Explanation: even accepting that this concern is unfounded, they claimed concerns, and "unproven" is a judgment/opinion of the writer, which make the sentence violate WP:NPOV Escain (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: AFAIK, there is no credible proof to any of these conspiracy theories, so unproven is probably the best way to describe things until credible referenced evidence actually exists - don't think this is a WP:NPOV issue either. Ed6767 talk! 16:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Health section - contradicts itself

I don't know anything at all about 5G, nor do I have any feelings whatsoever about it, however I do know a contradiction when I see one, and there is one in the section on health. Currently the section begins with this sentence: "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe and arguments to the contrary are based on a conspiratorial red herring that cites the newness of the technology as a reason not to trust it". The section then goes on to say this "In 2019, 180 scientists from 36 countries wrote to the European Union requesting a pause on 5G rollout, because of their concerns about possible health risks". Clearly those two sentences contradict one another. If "180 Scientists" requested a pause on 5G rollout, for health reasons, then it is not the case that "arguments to the contrary are based on" conspiracy theory etc. The piece needs re-writing. Something along the lines of: "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe and MANY - THOUGH NOT ALL - arguments to the contrary are based on a conspiratorial red herring that cites the newness of the technology as a reason not to trust it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.184.104.76 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The two things are not contradictory. There are loads of "scientists" who hold loopy views on any topic you care to think of. That doesn't change what the consensus is, from global warming, to vaccination, to 5G. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Frequency range upper limit

In section 5G#Frequency_range_2_(>_24_GHz) there was the statement 5G can use frequencies of up to 300 GHz. This does appear in the archived version of the referenced source, however the current version only mentions 39GHz from the preceding sentence. I have removed the statement as it is no longer supported by the source. Artemgy (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

useless image

do we really need a picture of a smartphone in this article, which is basically a black rectangle? what information does that give? i suppose the marketing team put it there, which is cute, but it just takes up space providing nothing. i suggest removing that picture. 89.132.97.97 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

IoT section and paragraph

" Due to the increased bandwidth, it is expected that the new networks will not just serve cellphones like existing cellular networks, but also be used as general internet service providers for laptops and desktop computers, competing with existing ISPs such as cable internet, and also will make possible new applications in internet of things (IoT) and machine to machine areas."

This doesn't really make much sense. 1) IoT devices require very little transmittion bandwidth, and can be supported by most 4G equipment even with high density of devices. 2) 5G modems technically uses more power, so they are not really applicable to a lot of IoT devices. 3) It does open some applications, but it is not exclusive to IoT. Please remove this paragraph, because it doesn't have any real attachment to reality (and more just is marketing gimmick to ride on the hype of IoT growth, than shows technical merits of 5G) . There is plenty of IoT devices already using 3G and 4G networks, so 5G is not revolutionary in this sense. 2A02:168:2000:5B:B286:589F:2352:96B8 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see a whole section devoted to debunking the advertising spin that various companies are advertising 5G with. As far as I know 4G is fine, and 5G is a bit faster, but with various limits on the very fast speeds like distance / interferrence etc. The advertising spin says things like remote surgical operations, autonomous cars etc. will be possible... where as these things don't require 5G at all. And who would have a remote surgeon operating on them via cellphone data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.61.185 (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Health effects

Scientists have concerns about the health effects from the potential widespread involuntary radiation exposure to the 5G cell towers, so I'd to request that be covered by the article.[4][5][6] Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because 2 sources of yours violate WP:NPOV and the other (Salon) goes against mainstream scientific opinion see WP:FRINGE, as resolved by numerous edits and reverts, the health effects of microwave radiation, if any (see edits reasoning) should be listed as a link to a separate article at the bottom of the page, not as mainstream opinion. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when exactly NPOV started to mean "mainstream point of view"? Are you confusing letters? -- A man without a country (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether health concerns are well-founded, there is concern. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

whether something goes against mainstream scientific opinion or not isn’t necessarily the deciding factor as to inclusion of alternative theories, such as, in this case, the growing analysis of the possibility of 5G having detrimental health effects. Alternative theoretical formulations have a valid case as to their inclusion (or not), as set out in WP:FRINGE and should - therefore - not be dismissed out of hand. Quoting from there: ‘’ “Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted.” ‘’ It may well become vitally important, literally, for the health concerns about 5G to be given space. Boscaswell talk 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:NPOV is required for the article in Wikipedia, not for the source.--Escain (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I propose adding a sentence or two under the section “Health concerns” referencing the New York Times article from July 2019 that claims one of the original influential studies on the health concerns of wireless technology made a fundamental scientific error. The article claims this study was a major contributing factor to widespread concerns but it was incorrect in its findings. 2020JJ (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of Dr. Curry's research mistake, as detailed in the New York Times article would be appropriate. The article traces how a mistake in a 1990 meta review study by Dr. Curry that led him to the false conclusion that "higher frequencies are more dangerous" is behind many of the current erroneous fears of 5G. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally biased WP:NPOV content

Please, remove or re-edit completely this paragraph:

1. The section is under "Criticism" header. We are not here to claim if the criticism is valid or not, just to enumerate objective list of criticisms.
2. It is totally biased in favour of 5G violating WP:NPOV:
   1. "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe and arguments to the contrary are based on a conspiratorial red herring that cites the newness of the technology as a reason not to trust it" → Do we have statistics about scientific consensus over the world? No. Seems that at least 180 scientists are not part of this "consensus".
   2. "Misunderstanding of 5G technology has given rise to conspiracy theories claiming it has an adverse effect on human health." -> Again, an opinion of the writer with clear WP:NPOV. A different opinion does not means "misunderstanding" or "conspiracy theory". In fact, there are many studies expressing adverse effect of electromagnetic waves on health. Should we start claiming "conflict of interest" or "corruption" against the writer?
   3. "...garnered over 180 signatures from scientists representing 35 countries.[104] They cite unproven concerns over the 10 to 20 billion..." I believe they cite concerns, not unproven concerns. I also assume 180 scientists over 35 countries is already a valid source. And this also prove that there is no such as "scientific consensus" for this topic.
   4. Each line continue in the same way.

I suggest to edit to something objective and provable:

An international appeal to the European Union made on September 13, 2017, garnered over 180 signatures from scientists representing 35 countries.[104] They cite concerns over the 10 to 20 billion connections to the 5G network and the subsequent increase in RF-EMF exposure affecting the global populace constantly. A further letter by many of the same scientists was written in January 2019, demanding a moratorium on 5G coverage in Europe until potential hazards for human health have been fully investigated.[105][106]

In April 2019, the city of Brussels in Belgium blocked a 5G trial because of radiation laws.[107] In Geneva, Switzerland, a planned upgrade to 5G was stopped for the same reason.[108] The Swiss Telecommunications Association (ASUT) has said that studies have been unable to show that 5G frequencies have any health impact.[109] Several Swiss cantons adopted moratoriums on 5G technology.[110]

According to CNET,[111] "Members of Parliament in the Netherlands are also calling on the government to take a closer look at 5G. Several leaders in Congress have written to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern about potential health risks. In Mill Valley, California, the city council blocked the deployment of new 5G wireless cells."[111][112][113][114][115] Similar concerns were raised in Vermont[116] and New Hampshire.[111] After campaigning by activist groups, a series of localities in the UK, including Totnes, Brighton and Hove, Glastonbury, and Frome passed resolutions against the implementation of further 5G infrastructure.[117][118][119]

--Escain (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe. This is well-sourced. Of course there are lots of conspiracy theories &c. but Wikipedia's mission is to provide accepted knowledge from authoritative sources. Grandstanding politicians are rather the opposite of that. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, Wikipedia mission is to provide relevant information (BOTH views) not only "authoritative sources" in which case it should be defined which is an authoritative source, does not mater your misunderstanding on the subject. 5G are electromagnetic waves and there are multiple articles proving effects of non-ionizing radiation on animals/humans ( I just let try put your head in a microwave 700w/5min to check). It is not a matter only of frequency, but also of intensity, and the problem is that for >10GHz to travel far enough you need quite some power already. Also, different sources of radiation can substract each other or sum, so even if one antena is rated under acceptable limits, several antenas can have an amplified effect on specific areas (just read about wave physics). Even low-intensity waves have proven effects on animals and humans, including sleeping disorders.--Escain (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong about "both views". See WP:GEVAL. We report the accepted knowledge, and contextualize the fringe stuff in relation to it. 5G health concerns are now firmly in the same bracket as chemtrails, bigfoot and little green men. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong considering that several countries decision, 180 scientists POV and several scientific studies are "minority view". What is the "authoritative source" for criticisms by the way? How many scientists signatures and countries do you need for a valid criticism? --Escain (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources for these 180 scientists actually quote a particular concern; all of them basically call for the rollout of 5G to be slowed down for further investigation. The actual claims being made fir 5G being harmful are elsewhere; usually on wingnut conspiracy theory sites. 180 scientists is, really, a very small number - compare our coverage on scientists who don't agree with the consensus on anthropogenic climate change. And one of the sources that I particularly noticed claims that antennas will have to be installed "every 10 to 12 houses", which is nonsense. As the quoted article in the Guardian says "To fully debunk the health fears around 5G is impossible: there is no consistent set of claims being made, few explicit studies being cited, and a surfeit of scientific terminology being used in ways that obscure rather than illuminate."Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn and Black Kite. The worldwide agency which sets safety standards for electromagnetic exposure, the ICNIRP, just completed a 6 year review of its exposure limits, in which it looked at dozens of controlled studies on millimeter wave exposure, and it concluded that 5G is safe [7]. Reports by other standards organizations, the WHO and IEEE say 5G is safe. As detailed in The health hazard that isn't, New York Times, the controversy was started by a single erroneous study in 2000. We have a separate article on Electromagnetic radiation and health which addresses these issues, and this article already has sufficient content on "concerns" about 5G's safety. "Concerns" do not have the same weight as controlled scientific studies, and it is deceptive and WP:undue weight to draw a WP:false balance between them. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not debating the existence of the criticism (because it already exists in the page), we are debating WP:NPOV violation. And calling them "conspiracy theory" to the opinion of several countries and 180 scientists is inappropriate and violating WP:NPOV. Also Chetvorno you misunderstood the articles: "No evidence of health concern" is not "evidence of safety", and sorry: one is a regulation and the other is a pure advertising claim of safety, I see nothing like a scientific study on your references. Also consider that the existence of those regulations demonstrate the concern, and they applied some arbitrary safety limit to minimize the effects. Only time will provide enough statistics to validate or not health issues at that safety limit, until then, the concern is valid.--Escain (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The article does not call the article by the 180 scientists a conspiracy theory, as opposed to the many conspiracy theories that do exist. It would be difficult to do so anyway, because it isn't a theory, just of group of people asking for more research into the issue. Many people have "concerns" about many things; unless they're significant and well-covered enough in reliable sources, we tend not to discuss them in the articles about those things. We are certainly not going to insinuate that there is a large body of evidence for the non-safety of 5G, because there currently isn't. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Escain: "I see nothing like a scientific study on your references."

The March 2020 ICNIRP paper justifying their exposure limits, on the link I gave you, cites 55 scientific papers, Appendix A cites 90 papers, and Appendix B cites a further 38 papers, including for example

"Partial-body exposure of human volunteers to 2450 MHz pulsed or CW fields provokes similar thermoregulatory responses"

"Human exposure to pulsed fields in the frequency range from 6 to 100 GHz"

"Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case-control study"

"Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans"

"Risks for central nervous system diseases among mobile phone subscribers: a Danish retrospective cohort study"

"Comprehensive review of quality of publications and meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionising radiofrequency fields"

Many of the citations are to review articles and meta analyses that summarize and analyze many additional experimental studies. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Proving the relation between two elements in life can be very difficult (just remember how many years passed until tobacco was accepted as cancerogenic). Your own citation claim: "...have reliably shown that the 8–13 Hz alpha band inwaking EEG and the 10–14 Hz“sleep spindle”frequencyrange in sleep EEG, are affected by radiofrequency EMF ex-posure with specific energy absorption rates (SAR) <2 Wkg−1, but there is no evidence that these relate to adverse healtheffects...". You can also see that WHO report it as "possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)". However, I am not here to debate the truth, but to insist on [[WP:NPOV]--Escain (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

5G conspiracy Our history is full of such insane claims whenever a new technology arrives in the market. There are a lot of examples of poorly understood technology.

5G is simply the next generation after 1G, 2G, 3G, and 4G. But as of previous generations, the fifth generation is operated at a much higher radiofrequency than the earlier generations. It will provide performance far better than 3G or 4G ever could. This allows the possibility to deliver a greater service experience of the network. This technology will provide a drastic change in the network field.

break

There are several claims regarding that the 5G high radio frequency millimetre waves helped mutate the SARS virus into the COVID-19. This caused a weakening of the immune system in human and causing the Coronavirus Covid-19 outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giva Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the source? Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this extraordinary claim would require a good deal of serious scientific evidence to include in the article, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY.--Chetvorno^TALK 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Radiofrequency (RF) is the emission of energy from a source, which means even the heat that comes off our bodies’ counts as radiation.

It is one of the forms of electromagnetic energy which consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together or radiating through space. The radiation that mobile phones generate is at a much lower rate making them much safer than high energy X-rays and gamma rays. RF radiation does not give off ionizing radiation, which has enough energy to ionize an atom or molecule and thus damage cell DNA resulting in cancer.

RF only has enough energy to move or vibrate atoms in a molecule, not enough to ionize it. Meaning RF does not cause cancer by damaging DNA cells, there are still studies going on in this field.

Several studies are suggesting prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields could increase the risk for cells to be damaged, and possibly causing cancer. However, the studies where not unique to the fifth generation but can be applicable.

There the studies saying that 5G can be dangerous, 5g are no more or less dangerous compared to previously deployed technologies like 4G and 3G. But all wireless communication technologies could be harmful in a higher dose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giva Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure if I’m way off the mark on not, but WP:NPOV says that regarding science, anything that falls outside the mainstream scientific view (in this case, 5G is safe) counts as pseudoscience or a fringe theory, and that the mainstream view should be given more weighting as the truth. Lbc07 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lbc07: Exactly. WP:NPOV and WP:due weight requires we avoid drawing a WP:false balance between "concerns" expressed by people, and the views of scientific organizations which are based on scientific studies. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Giva Chakraborty: The millimeter waves used in 5G, which is what activists have expressed concerns about, are actually even safer than the microwaves used in existing cell phones, because they don't penetrate the body. The 800 MHz microwaves used in existing phones have a penetration depth of several cm in human tissue, while the 25 GHz millimeter waves used in 5G penetrate less than a millimeter into the body, they are stopped by the skin and can't reach vital organs. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Misinformation" or "information" at Wireless device radiation and health article, 5G subsection

I've started a discussion at the talk page for Wireless device radiation and health to resolve an edit war (in which I was involved) re the use of the term "misinformation" or "information" in the 5G subsection of that article. Your input is welcome. --papageno (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding to Applications Section

Hello, I'd like to add to the Applications areas section of this article adding in that some high traffic areas will also benefit from 5G speeds and stability. Those areas include sports stadiums, cities, concert venues, or hospitals.Tyrrellr50 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Health effects again

I just had an added paragraph reverted after a matter of seconds by Alexbrn who has some form on this (see below, Alex arguing that concern over 5G health effects are "in the same category as little green men"), so I'm addressing this comment mainly to Alex. Justification for the revert was that "we consider primary sources unreliable", which is nonsense. Are peer-reviewed journal articles really less reliable than the Guardian newspaper? Such an idea goes against wikipedia policy as well as common sense. [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#%22Primary%22_does_not_mean_%22bad%22 ]]. The paragraph that I've added is scientifically rigorous reasoning, also I hope comprehensible to the common man, I'll be back to check on it in a day or so.

Interaction of electromagnetic radiation with biological matter is a question of some interest and an area of active research, certainly paranoids out there have 'fringe' ideas, but certainly also the WHO advice to keep cell phones away from your head [[8]] is not entirely 'fringe'" JoshBerryman (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for biomedical information. Please also do not misrepresent sources by inserting unsourced/inaccurate editorial like "in the popular press". Please also review the discussions on this Talk page wrt health effects of 5G, and how Wikipedia must deal with it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

"Please see": OK, saw. I think I understand your problem, summed up by the quote from WP:MEDRS "we don't know what is going on well enough to judge whether the conclusions will "stick" or not. Even scientists don't know." Well, I'm a scientist and in this case I do know... I edited the article after days making an overview of the field as part of my academic duties. I was surprised how much genuine cause for concern there is in relation to mm wave exposure, and decided to spend a morning recording that the reaction to this is not pure hysteria as some people seem to believe. I've reviewed the discussions "Health Effects" and "Health Concerns" before I posted, it seems that people got tired of pointing out that it is a biased ("non WP:NP") position to list conspiracy theories in derogatory terms without remarking on the points where they touch reality. As a thought experiment, ask yourself if it would be responsible to comment on the McCarthyite "Reds Under the Bed" hysteria without noting that USA and USSR were genuinely in a tense nuclear standoff, or that both parties carried out murders and espionage in each other's back yards? Certainly your contention that harm from 5G is pure fantasy is simply false, its a credible hypothesis with solid physical grounding and increasing empirical evidence from the literature. JoshBerryman (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You can ditch the phrase "popular press" if you like, I just meant newspapers as opposed to the scientific press. Its not important.

As WP:MEDRS succinctly puts it: "cite reviews don't write reviews". The "scientific consensus" is not limited to something in newspapers, as our sources report. The scientific consensus is that 5G is safe. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You claim a consensus, when in fact there is none - if there were, the volume of literature and discussion on the subject would be abating rather than increasing as it is doing (see this parliamentary debate, from last week: [[9]]). I'll just translate Xavier Bettel's remark to English: "At the European Council last week, I was the only one of the 27 heads of state and government to raise the environmental and health risks of 5G, the only one! And I can assure you that the Grand-Duchy (of Luxembourg) is not ashamed!". I think it is pointless to bandy the opinions of committees and reviewers backwards and forwards when there is physics which can be put forward, but on the terrain of authority, what could be better than a head of state? I'm really more interested in facts than policy, but you can't claim a consensus of safety in these circumstances.

You then use this imaginary consensus to stifle discussion, throwing arbitrary and biased statements such as "Misunderstanding of 5G technology has given rise to conspiracy theories". Misunderstanding or a correct understanding? The repeated complaints that you are departing from WP:NP are entirely valid. If it would make you happy, I can rewrite with more recourse to primary explanation of the science and less reliance on citations, but something tells me that your position is not really about the use of citations, before I do that I'd like to hear from you first that you are ready to walk back from your "little green men" attitude of previous posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshBerryman (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I claim nothing, but the point is that the good sources we cite do claim something in a way which meets WP:RS/AC. Likewise the sources also tell us that 5G health concerns are the province of the crankosphere (notably, that 5G caused the Coronavirus). The purpose of the encyclopedia is to reflect the mainstream consensus as published in good sources, and to make plain that nonsense is nonsense. This is WP:NPOV and a fundamental principle. If you have a solid source of sufficient strength to support the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that there is not such a consensus, then produce it. So far you have only cited primary research, which is unreliable for our purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You say you claim nothing, you ask to be considered to stand on a position of neutrality, yet you are convinced that "5G health concerns are the province of the crankosphere" and "nonsense", while employing hyperbolic and rather crankish language such as likening the documented effects of electromagnetic radiation as "equivalent to little green men". You've picked a straw man for your argument (the coronavirus idea, which indeed is not supported by any consensus) and ask the idea that electromagnetic radiation could cause harm to be considered as WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Is it really? Everyone agrees that electromagnetic radiation can cause harm, the debate as to whether 5G is a minor health risk or a completely negligible one is a matter of degree, rather than anything which challenges the axioms by which we live.

I find that whenever I debunk what you have said you simply reply with a different argument, however here I go again ready to make the effort for you and verify that WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not apply here:

"Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"

Apparently important: yes, not covered by multiple mainstream sources: well, yes it is. We both know that there are multiple "mainstream" sources (peer-reviewed journals, reports of debates, etc, etc). So scratch this one.

"Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;"

Challenged yes, primary/self-published, not really. I'll admit that I led with the primary science but we can find newspaper articles if you want, here's the first google hit, scientific american: [[10]]

"Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;"

Nope

"Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

Yes, we have people claiming a conspiracy: conspiracy theories exist and I don't dispute it. I see why you would be quick to dismiss an issue when so many people have come to feel persecuted in relation to it. What we don't have is a contradiction of the prevailing view, this is something that you insist on again and again with your talk of consensus but it simply isn't the case that a majority of scientists are ready to rule out harm from 5G. If you find a source that says otherwise I can likewise find one that says so, often even with on overlap in the committee members "cannot be excluded that exposure under the latest ICNIRP standards also has the potential to affect health" and we can waste a lot of time. Others earlier in this discussion have pointed to delegations of scientists and medical professionals numbering in the hundreds. The existence of reports like these indicates that the majority position is harm-agnostic (this majority says less, because agnosticism is not by its nature a vocal position), not harm-denying, and that those who confidently expect harm are a minority significant enough to at least have their views explained. JoshBerryman (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• You produced one source, a blog, which is unreliable, and an old opinion piece which is irrelevant. Cranky scientists can be found on any topic from vaccination to climate change to GMO safety. Sources are all, and what we cite is strong & good. I think we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn. "Concerns" and petitions, even by scientists, do not have the same weight as reviews of controlled studies in peer-reviewed journals and the conclusions of standards-setting organizations. Equating them is called WP:false balance. The recent March 2020 analysis by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which concluded that the current limits on millimeter wave exposure are adequate, cites 184 scientific studies, many of which are meta-analyses of many additional studies. Our article gives WP:due weight to the health concerns, but also to the mainstream scientific view, which is that millimeter waves at legal levels are safe. As required by WP:V, if in the future scientific consensus as reflected in secondary and tertiary WP:RSs changes, the article can be changed. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn? But he is lying with this statement "you produced one source" and even if what he said were true it would contradict what he said earlier. I'm going to try and keep this short: first Alex reverted my edit, saying that we can't use peer-reviewed science, or (God forbid) knowledge or logic, because the great unwashed are not equipped to judge the application of these special tools. Fair enough, this is part of wikipedia's goal of availability to the public although I'm not sure it should apply to technical topics which can potentially be too complex to reduce. Apparently, rather, we should rely on public opinion, such as the newspaper articles which Alex prefers to cite in his own writing. I'm prepared to work with this, so I suggest using the Luxembourg Times (English Language version of Das Wort, a national newspaper) and Scientific American (a reputable scientific journalism resource). Still too high-brow for Alex, he wouldn't accept it, so we have to go to reports by people similar to Alex himself, bloggers and standards organisation bureacrats. Now he complains that its "just a blog" and "irrelevant opinion". So, having refuted Alex's edit using sources all across the intellectual spectrum, from primary science all the way down to the level that he was asking for, you Chetvorno decide to read the last line of what he has written and chime in that you agree? Ultimately I don't want to write about opinions, petitions, bloggers, journalists, prime ministers or any of the various sources of (mostly ill-founded) health worries in relation to 5G, but only to explain the physics by which radiation interacts with biomolecules, which anyone can read about in many sources, and allow readers who know, most of them, what is the difference between light and radio for instance, to make up their own minds with that better information.

It was Alex's idea to bring in blah opinions from secondary and tertiary sources, this idea of "intellectual democracy", but I have supplied these things and he has refused it, showing that he is not being entirely detached in his approach to this article. I don't care, I think he is likely to be mature enough to accept this eventually, and the longer he doesn't the more obvious his lack of NP becomes. The material that needs to be in the public domain here on wikipedia is this very simple list of facts:

- Higher frequency (GHz-THz) electromagnetic waves have shorter effective range because they are absorbed by water, protein, cell membranes and various other molecules, bio and otherwise. This is in contrast to MHz, which passes through non-conducting matter relatively well.

- These higher frequencies are still not as high as (for example) UV or X-rays, which can cause immediately dangerous chemical reactions by interacting with electrons in biomolecules.

- Radiation in the GHz-THz range couples less to electrons and more to the slower movement of whole atoms and molecules, being at frequencies typically associated with thermal vibration. Damage through the very mild heating which a mobile phone could deliver in this way has (surprisingly) been tested for, unsurprisingly there is no risk of serious burns.

- GHz-THz radiation interaction with proteins has been documented extensively in vitro, indicating that by driving specific vibrational modes of these soft molecules they can become unfolded or disordered. Protein folding is constrained by evolution to require a low input of energy to disrupt, in order that the cell can digest and recycle protein, so this observation is in no sense surprising.

I've already posted a list of things asking to be debunked, and instead received whataboutery or incoherent changes of subject. Please, Alex, or anyone, give an honest read and attempt to prove any of the four statements above incorrect. I am sick of telling people what to think, as demanded (then refused) by Alex. Sooner or later people must read facts, and these facts are highly relevant. JoshBerryman (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The health effects section has clearly become biased and one sided, not truly communicating the issue at hand, which is WHY people are concerned about health effects. I thought my pre-covid edit struck a balanced tone which explained the issue based on many on the articles coming out in various publication. The covid-19 "conspiracy theory" I think has brought any concern about the health issues under the banner of "conspiracy theory" which I don't think is quite accurate. I don't see why there should be any issue in clearly explaining why there are concerns about 5G effecting their health as that has been clearly reflected in many mainstream publications. My original edit I believe unfortunately catalysd the section into what I found to be over the top and scare mongering, and now it has swung the other way so that health concerns are not even taken into account. I'm just going to insert the text of what I wrote here which eventually was "run over" post-covid

"Health concerns related to radiation from cell telephone towers and cell telephones are not new. Although electromagnetic hypersensitivity is not scientifically recognized, effects such as headaches and neurasthenia have been claimed from 4G and Wi-Fi. However, 5G technology presents a couple of new issues that depart from 4G technology, namely, higher microwave frequencies from 2.6 GHz to 28 GHz, compared to 700–2500 MHz typically used by 4G. Because the higher millimeter wave used in 5G does not penetrate objects easily, this requires the installation of antennas every few hundred meters, which has sparked concern among the public.

Critics of 5G say that these millimeter wave lengths have not been tested extensively on the general public. Most experts believe that more scientific research is needed, as even though millimeter wave technology has been used in technology such as radar for many decades."

Probrooks (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

No, because that would be classic WP:GEVAL based on unreliable sources. We know what the scientific consensus is and would need an exceptionally strong source to make any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to the contrary. Yes we know there are "concerns", but also that these concerns have no rational grounding. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of so-called scientific consensus, but there is also"scientific research", and I just want to present some links for the sake of awareness with a bibliography of scientific research on EMF's, including that into millimetre wave frequencies.

Quoted from this web site: "When it comes to EMF issues, one of the most frequently heard phrases is "There is no evidence to support EMFs having health effects" or simply "There is no conclusive evidence". This is completely wrong; there is an enormous body of evidence out there, but public and even academic awareness seems to be very poor. Therefore, we will be presenting a list of papers and odds ratios which either show serious effects or are considered important papers on the subject which we have collected over the years."

This perspective very much goes against your point of view that these concerns have no rational grounding, you just may not actually investigated the scienfitic data, and rather just listened to the "authorities", and of course they have "rational" reasons for claiming this technology is safe. The Zory Glaser archives also contain thousands of scientific studies of EMF's going back decades, many originally in languages other than english, which he collated while working in the military.

I understand these sources may not suitable for this article, but I just wanted to point out there is a rational reason to be concerned about millimetre wave frequencies and non-ionising radiation, as the scientific research has been quite sophisticated over many decades now.

References

Probrooks (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The two links you provide just tend to confirm that 5G health concerns are now really just part of the crank-o-sphere. Here, we are reflect to follow reliable sources. Not sure why you call the scientific consensus "so-called". Alexbrn (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Section heading: Misinformation and conspiracy theories | Health

Hello all- A comment in passing: This is my first visit to this article. I have no view on the topic, and came here to learn a bit about it.

What I see in the third and fourth paragraphs of the subsection 5G#Health doesn't seem to belong under the above-mentioned parent heading, regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter. I don't see anything in those paragraphs that would support categorizing the concerns on the part of the various governments cited there as demonstrating misinformation or conspiracy theories. Eric ^talk 13:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine. Many politicians are addicted to misinformation after all. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My post was not about whether we should engage in conjecture about the motivations of politicians. It comes more from the perspective of expository writing: I don't think that a section of an encyclopedia article that states that an organization has expressed concern about something should come under the heading of "misinformation". If the bulk of the that section presented demonstrably incorrect statements by entities on a given topic, that would be a different matter. But this is not what the section currently presents. Eric ^talk 15:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eric: I understand your point. However all the international standards organizations, after analysing 70 years of studies on the health effects of millimeter waves on humans, say 5G is safe. Every new technology raises "concerns", and those concerns have been given WP:DUE WEIGHT in the Health section. But if there is no credible scientific evidence that 5G is dangerous, then the "concerns" are based on "misinformation". The entire 5G health hazard movement was started by a single erroneous scientific study in 2000 that has been debunked but is still widely circulated: The 5G health hazard that isn't, New York Times. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Right. It seems I did not present my point well. I'm not seeking to lend any legitimacy to any of the health concerns, nor even to address that aspect. My issue is strictly with the fact that the section heading does not fit the content well. The mere fact that some entities have expressed concern does not amount to misinformation or "conspiracy theories". The concerns may well arise out of misinformation, but that is not what our text states. The first two paragraphs bring up "disinformation" and "conspiracy theories"; the following two, totaling considerably more text, present the hesitation of multiple entities to adopt the technology, but do not demonstrate that their hesitation arises out of misinformation. A section name of Misconceptions regarding 5G technology or Concerns regarding adverse health effects would be a much more accurate summing up of the current section content. And I think we would do best to avoid the term "conspiracy theory" in a section heading, as it can come across as a bit loaded, at least in an encyclopedic context, given the frequency with which it is thrown around these days. ...OK, pun not originally intended, but I'm going with it... Eric ^talk 20:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

So the section heading should be "Misinformation, conspiracy theories and false alarms" ? I could go with that. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Such a heading would be inappropriate for an objective encyclopedia article, and could make us look like we have an agenda outside of presenting dispassionate analysis. Eric ^talk 11:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh? The heading would be totally objective and dispassionate, if a bit wordy. It's our duty to be clear about the reality of the situation. What we don't want to be doing is insinuating that these "concerns" have any basis. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Stating that someone has a concern does not inherently "insinuate" anything, especially if the statement is followed by evidence that the concern is unfounded. Eric ^talk 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Eric has a point. I wouldn't object to changing the section name "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" to something neutral like "Health concerns", as long as the text isn't changed. Not all of the "concerns" are due to "misinformation", although the vast majority are; some are just "concerns". --Chetvorno^TALK 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand Eric's reasoning, but don't think "Health concerns" alone is neutral: it understates the situation. Since the vast majority of information is in fact misinformation, an accurate encyclopedic heading would at least include that word or similar. --papageno (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Security

Relevant to article, but I don't have time to parse it right now: https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/18/5g_security_enisa_positive_technologies/ Zazpot (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American

I searched the article and this talk page for publication name, title, and author for this Scientific American article: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/. Zero. How can that be? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Given it is an opinion piece, and there are better WP:MEDRS sources, it is not likely to be included in the article. --papageno (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American is as RS as you can get. It is far easier to get something into Science or Nature. Charles Juvon (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably harder to get in to the magazine than write a blog post. In any case, while this blog post is "reliable" for the blogger's views, they're fringe, old, and sailing under a WP:REDFLAG - so are of no use here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Charles Juvon, it is not an RS; unlike a scientific paper the opinion piece you referenced is not peer reviewed, and does not represent the opinion of the Scientific American editorial board, it is just the opinion of one scientist, Joel M. Moskowitz. His piece drew a lot of criticism, and an opposing opinion appeared in the same column the week after: David Robert Grimes, 28 October 2019, Don't fall prey to scaremongering about 5g. Grimes debunked the NTP rat study that Moskowitz focused on, and many other errors made by 5G alarmists, you should read it. In addition, these articles came out before the huge 6 year ICNIRP review of exposure standards published in March 2020 that confirmed that the current 5G exposure levels are safe. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this the same Joel_Moskowitz, "a researcher on the faculty of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley."? Charles Juvon (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it, and looks like there's a NPOV problem at Joel Moskowitz#Meta-analysis because the WP:FRINGE views therein are not properly contextualized with mainstream knowledge. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

An easy solution would be to cite both SciAm opinion pieces to illustrate the problem of conflicting opinions in the media - even if Moskowitz is completely wrong. I see Moskowitz is the Director for the Center for Family and Community Health in Public Health at UC Berkeley. David Robert Grimes "is an Irish science writer with professional training in physics and cancer biology." Both are highly qualified to disagree. Charles Juvon (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"illustrate the problem of conflicting opinions in the media" sounds suspiciously like WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia accentuates the mainstream and fringe views are given short shrift. This is a a feature not a bug. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think some humor is in order.

This user believes 5G is safe.

Charles Juvon (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

Suggest to add to this sentence:" Autonomous cars do not require 5G, as they have to be able to operate where they do not have a network connection.[17]"

The following: "However, most autonomous vehicles also feature teleoperations for mission accomplishment, and these greatly benefit from 5G technology."

[11] [12] Elinav (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Done J850NK (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

In the second paragraph, I have rewritten the following sentence, "A 5G network will be composed of networks of up to three different types of cells, each requiring specific antenna designs, each providing a different tradeoff of download speed vs. distance and service area," to "A 5G network will be composed of networks consisting of up to three different types of cells, each requiring specific antenna designs as well as providing a different tradeoff of download speed to distance and service area." I believe my change increases the readability of the sentence. Omegatomatoman32 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Costs more then 4g as it’s requires unlimited plans unlike 4g 71.254.11.195 (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems like it would depend on the provider. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Health Effects Section Nuked

Hey folks, I updated the paragraph that cites ongoing petitions from hundreds of the world's eminent experts in the field by adding another source and providing more specifics. I did not start the section, but immediatly after I updated it Alexbrn deleted the entire section, which consisted of others' existing contributions as well, with no explanation beyond "junk source". Alexbrn used a twinkle and undid the entire section, without any attempt to update or offer feedback on how the section could be improved, or what I did that triggered not only a full deletion of my accurate and appropriate contribution, but also the deletion of the pre-existing content. You can see this in the latest history.

I have reviewed the conversations up to this point surrounding one of the sources I cited, a petition from EU experts you can find here: http://www.5gappeal.eu/the-5g-appeal/ It's worth noting that the conversations thus far referred to this as a petition with 180 signatories, but it now has 417. This is the fact I sought to update on the page with my first edit, and it's not clear to me why this uncontroversial update should be undone, and even less clear why the section would then need to be deleted since it has only gained more signatories since the section was written.

Moreover, I have seen editors in this discussion claim multiple times that the signatories cite no studies outside of crank conspiracies, which is patently untrue. A cursory, good-faith review of the link posted above reveals that it contains numerous peer-reviewed, published scientific reports which the 417 independent, professional scientists and doctors believe justify their opinions.

The second source I used was an appeal from 255 EMF scientists from 44 countries to the UN and WHO: https://emfscientist.org/index.php/science-policy/emf-science-and-related-policy-developments The website cites thousands of peer-reviewed studies on which the signatories are basing their concerns. This was also deleted without explanation by Alexbrn.

I do not claim that 5G is harmful, I am only attempting to document the opinions of hundreds of scientists who are citing decades of research, including modern studies. This is an ongoing issue that has yet to be resolved on this page through consensus. Seeing the numerous other people who have expressed similar concerns to mine here, I can say that we aren't trying to take over this page with fringe conspiracies. We are trying to carve out a small space to express the opinions of a growing group of hundreds of eminent experts in the relevant fields, and the peer-reviewed research their opinions are based upon.BigFriendlyGiant2 (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Are their secondary sources to establish weight for this "petition", and to put it in its proper, fringe, context? If not per WP:GEVAL this kind of stuff is best omitted. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to make sure we have a clear goalpost here that isn't ever-shifting: you agree that there are sufficient primary and scientific sources, so we need to focus on secondary?

Considering the weight of academic, peer-reviewed research cited by these hundreds of scientists, WP:GEVAL justifies inclusion to some extent, at least a paragraph. Like the one that was here before I updated it to be more accurate, right before you deleted it.

Do you believe the consensus of ~700 experts in the field deserves be mentioned?

Would you mind addressing the questions posed in my original post? Don't want to end up talking past each other here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFriendlyGiant2 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We say what the consensus is. There are some fringe proponents too, as with most things in science (cf creationism, climate change denial, vaccines, etc. etc.). A sure sign is when science rejects the fringe views and its believers takes refuge in petitions, open letters, media interviews &c. As with this 5G health nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not provided any justification for unilaterally deleting the good-faith contributions of myself and others to this article. And you continue to ignore the evidence presented.BigFriendlyGiant2 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The justification I gave was policy WP:GEVAL. We should only describe fringe position through the lens of the rational mainstream. If in doubt, raise a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Out of 700 experts, there is probably one or two who are competent enough to publish their solidly evidence-based concerns in form of a study in a peer-reviewed journal. Let's just wait until that study is published and widely received so we can cite secondary sources about it. At the moment, all we have is irrelevant noise. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've not seen any serious coverage of this petition in any reliable secondary sources. I think it's fairly clear that unless a RS does cover it, this has very little significance --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Alexbrn, Hob Gadling and Salimfadhley, we need reliable, secondary sources; per WP:GEVAL "petitions" are not science. The recent March 2020 analysis by the world exposure standards organization ICNIRP, that cited hundreds of studies, concluded that existing exposure standards are safe. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We need to remember that social media has in the last decade completely changed our means of political and scientific discussion, replacing reliable sources with a digital conspiracy/rumor mill, in which algorithms subtly distort our view of the world and behaviorally-modify people to become extremists, for profit, and trolls create sophisticated fake scientific evidence that is difficult to debunk. It is very easy for even scientists to get caught up in the zeitgeist, and sign petitions. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyatnyu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joke65andFriends.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lwhvinc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cecilia haha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead sounds promotional

The second half of the first paragraph on this page sounds like it is trying to promote 5G networks, especially from "the main advantage of the new networks..." onward. If the lead is meant to make a first impression on the reader, this probably isn't the way to do it. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving history section up.

The history section should be after 'overview' and not all the way to the bottom. Someone with permissions please fix. 59.91.185.224 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Please move History section up. It should not be all the way to the bottom. It will look better that way. Maybe below the Overview section. Thank you. 59.91.184.191 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. (Personally, I think the position of the section is fine as-is.) Bsoyka (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Most articles starts with a relatively short introduction, etymology if applicable, history, then all the other topics. This is maybe not a rule though, idk. The history section for 5G is incredibly dry, just a list of events. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to add more of the "first" 5G networks to "history"

Currently article states that S-korea was first to launch commercial 5G on April 3. 2019. Even though a finnish carrier Elisa launched it's first commercial 5G networks in Tampere and Tallinn on July of 2018. DrFiNn02 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Can you not change it yourself? (i think semi-protected means that anyone with an account can update it?). In either case (as a request or edit yourself), please provide sources. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

5g WiFi not mentioned

Isn’t 5g also used on WiFi and not just a mobile phone thing My router has 2.4g and 5g on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.130.76 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the 5 Ghz band, it isn't the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

While 65.175.130.76 got it plain wrong, 5G can route its traffic over wifi (or anything that can carry traffic to intertubes, including satellites etc). Its called "non-3GPP access" in for example TS 23.501 section 5.5 · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Article Linking 5G to Severity of Covid-19

Can we add this science please? It's a peer-reviewed, scientific study that's been published in a medical journal.

"Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8580522/

Quote from the study:

"[...] evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR [wireless communications radiation] and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence [...]" 187.244.124.233 (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, did you google the authors? Psychic healing and holistic biological field theory. In an interview one of the authors bash medicine because "Science can not explain energy healing!" and then she goes on to describe the benefits of homeopathy, the memory of water, and.. srsly · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

One, fixed your link. Don't know why it was duplicated. Two, the burden of providing evidence is on you. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, and all that. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. For example: the BioInitiative Report cited is self-published and not peer-reviewed. Either way, I suspect that if you add this source you'll find it tagged with {{Unreliable medical source}} fairly quickly. Legowerewolf (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

And even if it was completely legitimate, Wikipedia content, especially a controversial claim like this, requires more than a single WP: primary source for support (WP:PSTS). --Chetvorno^TALK 16:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Requires more than a single primary source for support. Article content added needs to be limited to the only fact established by Rubik and Brown's Journal of Clinical and Translational Science article: simply that a connection is conceivable to credentialed scientists and can't be invalidated without more science. Anything beyond that is opinion.Paleorthid (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"GSM"

Shouldn't this also have at the first sentence of the article, that it's a form of GSM, given that many engineering professionals refer to it that way? --fs 04:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Change: ' They center on fringe claims that non-ionising radiation poses dangers to human health.[124] Unlike ionising radiation, non-ionizing radiation cannot remove electrons from atoms. The CDC says "Exposure to intense, direct amounts of non-ionizing radiation may result in damage to tissue due to heat. This is not common and mainly of concern in the workplace for those who work on large sources of non-ionizing radiation devices and instruments." '

to: ' They center on fringe claims that non-ionizing radiation poses dangers to human health. Unlike ionizing radiation, non-ionizing radiation cannot remove electrons from atoms. The CDC says "Exposure to intense, direct amounts of non-ionizing radiation may result in damage to tissue due to heat. This is not common and mainly of concern in the workplace for those who work on large sources of non-ionizing radiation devices and instruments." '

The British spellings of "ionise" should be changed based on the majority of "ionizes" and the article names for ionizing/non-ionizing radiation. SilverPeruses (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ruizhouruizhou (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ruizhouruizhou (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Digital Twins... an Exercise in Corporate Psychosis

Here's an actual quote from the first reference in that subsection:

Executive Summary
Enterprises should explore their position on the digital twins’ continuum
Digital transformation is shaping conversations across Industry 4.0, with new technologies such as AI, IoT and edge computing making big promises on their ability to optimise processes and create value. However, in order to leverage these opportunities, enterprises will need to be prepared to make significant investments. This raises a key challenge for organisations: before investing in new technologies, they will want to understand the opportunities and value they will bring, but this requires at least some investment to be made. This chicken or egg situation could hinder adoption of certain technologies, and impede industry progress towards Industry 4.0.

This is some of the most impressive "management making themselves look useful" type BS I've seen in 20 years, along with the many anonymous and confusing quotes from "Manufacturing Company" and such:

Network slicing

"Newtork[sic] slicing will be key, and the only way forward for certain use cases (but the impact of net neutrality is not yet solved)." -5G Testbed

Telemedicine 5G could revolutionise telemedicine – it will drive the conversation along with manufacturing -Global logistics and supply chain

If anyone can explain what exactly the hell Industry 4.0 is, why network neutrality is being mentioned, and why these people considered "AI, IoT, and edge computing" new technologies in 2020 when the reference was written... The entire global logistics and supply chain wants to drive the conversation about revolutionizing telemedicine, ALONG with manufacturing? Well punch me in the face and call me Sally! ...or in fact why this topic relates to 5G at all (I honestly can't tell. That reference is like somebody decided to play buzzword bingo while listening to a CEO talking at a shareholder's meeting while livestreaming a timeshare presentation, but overdosed on crack and PCP and had a stroke in the middle of it and got caught in some kind of horrible loop of circling back, bringing new paradigms to the table, and walking in circles to offices to let everyone know that they sent them an email.)

I'll leave it to somebody else to delete either that entire section or at least the reference as needed, I have to pull my eyes off it and go watch the entirety of 2girls1cup to scrub my brain of whatever the heck this was. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Fixed wireless

The section on "fixed wireless" is a bit oddball. One of the references talks about the use of 5G for last-mile coverage, but the range and reliability (absorption by atmospheric gas, obstructions, variance based on humidity, etc) of the higher speed bands of 5G is so short that this doesn't apply much outside of the short ranges VDSL functions at, and VDSL has kinda proven itself to be a bad stop-gap. That particular ref is UK-specific; I'm less familiar with the population density in the countryside in the UK and the right of way laws that might prevent installation of physical connections. I threw out the verizon ref entirely because it was just a link to an ad for their home 5G->wifi modem which doesn't prove that it's an alternative (unless the mere existence of something makes it a worthwhile alternative, in which case a 14.4 modem and an AOL account is an great broadband alternative too.)

The ZDNet page's table (found around 20 pages down after talking up the technology constantly) says it all, with the mentioned:

Speeds

	4G	5G
Peak data rate (downlink)	1Gb/s	20 Gb/s
User data rate	10Mb/s	100Mb/s

... except those numbers aren't quite right. I was getting roughly 100Mb on 4G (sporadically) already. 5G raised it a whopping 20Mb/s in the same city, provider, etc. It's just not that big an improvement.

The UK article doesn't seem to know what "last mile" means, because those areas that don't have wired internet run already in some form tend to have the worst possible wireless signals. If 5G was a last mile alternative then so was 4G, since in that sort of deployment they won't be very different in speed. 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A Shortfall Of Gravitas: There's the ITU 5G Goal (IMT-2020) and the 5G NR implementation, plus whatever your carrier and your phone manufacturer happens to be doing. Hypes are built around goals and don't need to make sense. To be fair though, the "user data rate" is supposed to be 5th percentile, so ehhhh... Artoria2e5 🌉 05:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)