The roll out of 5G wireless networks is getting a ton of press these days. Countless paragraphs and news bulletins are being generated about the advantages and disadvantages of this new technology. The coverage runs the gamut: from “techtopian” descriptions of a The Jetsons-like future featuring autonomous cars and robot assistants, to one where our brains are fried by targeted microwaves. If you’re not already on one of those two teams it might be tempting to say, diplomatically, that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Tempting, sure. And also wrong.
But, first, let’s start with what 5G actually is. With apologies to all the wonderful scientists and science writers of the world, here’s a spade = shovel attempt at explaining it: we use wireless technology to move information from one point to another using electromagnetic signals (which we call waves). In crude terms, Wi-Fi is essentially the same as radio waves (the ones you tune your car radio to), just of a different frequency. That’s why your folks, or maybe theirs before them, used to talk about listening to the news on the “wireless”.
The kinds of waves used to tune into the cricket commentary are of a lower frequency, which is best at covering distances. The higher the frequency, the faster the wave, but also the more easily the signal is disrupted and absorbed. Hence high frequencies are best used for short distances and within line-of-sight. Hertz (Hz) is a measure of frequency. So, putting this together: Wi-Fi of 5GHz (gigahertz) is faster than 2.4GHz but doesn’t cover the same distance and is easily disrupted.
And finally (thanks for sticking with me), the “G” in 5G stands for generation. Just like we had 4G, and 3G before that, this is shorthand for fifth-generation wireless communication technology. Each subsequent generation of wireless technology has used a higher range of radio frequency, making for faster information transfer. Between 2GHz and 5GHz is 4G, and from 6GHz to 25GHz is 5G.
As internet consumers, we like fast, but to meet our demand for fast information transfer wherever we are, providers (such as Vodacom, MTN, AT&T and Verizon) have to put up more and more connection points at smaller distances for the information to bounce around. That’s the network. Faster, more connected networks have enabled us to do more with our connections: from browsing and e-mail to streaming media. 5G is the future-proof tech that we believe will enable things such as autonomous cars and remote surgery. There is a set of standards that apply for a network to be called 5G, but this is the basics. Lecture done.
So, if 5G is going to enable edge-computing, internet of things, blisteringly fast downloads and telepresence, why are some people so scared of 5G? Honestly, they misunderstand or misuse the science. The fear is that these waves are moving through our bodies and causing damage, that the proliferation of Wi-Fi nodes and mobile towers means more waves, more speed, more damage. Just what damage is not clear or consistent.
Briton Mark Steele is one of the loudest proponents of this idea. He blames these technologies for increased levels of radiation, claiming it causes everything from nose bleeds to cancer to death. That’s why he wears mirrored sunglasses to “protect” his eyes, and advocates that his acolytes use tinfoil on windows and walls to block these waves from their homes. He’s not alone; “YouTube fearmonger” seems a common job description right now. What is so hard for me to grasp is how — I mean, how — a noisy no-one with zero qualifications is being held up against thousands of independent researchers and doctors, and non-profit organisations dedicated to health care.
This crowd talks about “RF (radio frequency) pollution” and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, but there is absolutely no scientific research that backs up either of these. I use the term “scientific research” deliberately. I’m talking about research that meets the standards of being reproducible and replicable, as well as tested against controls and peer-reviewed. Instead, people have personal anecdote and a belief that is resilient to rational criticism: anyone who disagrees is a pawn of “big pharma”. They suggest there is some huge conspiracy of leaders and scientists around the world who don’t want you to know “the truth” about 5G.
Even if it were true — and it isn’t — I always fall back on the simplest science of it: one of the most accessible explanations of this complete misunderstanding comes from Oxford university physicist and science writer David Robert Grimes, who told Vice Media: “The most powerful photon or a particle of light that could be a 5G particle is still about 17,000 times less energetic than the weakest possible visible light. So, if you’re really, really concerned about 5G, you should be terrified of light bulbs.”
• Thompson Ferreira is a freelance journalist, impactAFRICA fellow, and WanaData member.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.