Sunday, December 16, 2018

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Recent News

 Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. There's a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying it. The Hill, Nov 13, 2018.
  Dr. Melnick was the senior toxicologist who led the design of the National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies.

 Joyce Nelson. 5G Corporate Grail: Smart cities/dumb people?  Watershed Sentinel, Nov 5, 2018.
  "There’s a lot of hype about 5G, the fifth-generation wireless technology that is being rolled out in various “5G test beds” in major cities ...But it’s hard to see why we should be excited."

Annelie Fitzgerald. Mobile Phone Cover-up? Gov’t advisory body disbanded – inaccurate and misleading conclusions remain. TruePublica (UK), Oct 17, 2018.
   UK disbanded advisory group on non-ionizing radiation (AGNIR) after group issued inaccurate assessment of wireless radiation science subject to conflicts of interest. Public Heath England still relies on AGNIR report.

 Martin Röösli. Mobile phone radiation may affect memory performance in adolescents. Medical Xpress. July 20, 2018.
  Radio frequency radiation may have adverse effects on memory performance of specific brain regions exposed during mobile phone use.

 Ronnie Cohen. Do cellphones cause cancer? Government study reveals 'stunningly important findings. Newsweek, July 19, 2018.
  Current cellphone safety regulations are based on a premise that is now arguably false: that cellphone radiation can cause harm only by heating tissue.

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones.The Guardian, July 14, 2018.
  We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health – but is that because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the industry?

 Reynard Loki. Our cellphone addiction is turning wireless tech into an invisible weapon that’s destroying wildlife. Salon, July 14, 2018.
  Electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi and cell towers poses a “credible risk” to birds, mammals, insects and plants

 Lynne Peeples. Should cell phone providers warn customers of health risks? Berkeley says yes. McClatchy News Washington Bureau, July 11, 2018.
  Although the scientific community has not reached consensus, the California health department said research indicates long-term, extensive cellphone use may affect health.

 Lynne Peeples. Wireless industry using First Amendment as a cudgel in its battle against safety warnings. FairWarning, July 11, 2018.
  Complete version of the article. News websites published the McClatchy version.

 Microwave News. "'Clear evidence' of cell phone cancer risk, say leading pathologists." April 9, 2018.
  Why the peer review panel and NTP interpreted the same animal data differently. 

 Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. "How big wireless made us think that cell phones are safe: A special investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018.
  The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.

Recent Posts on EMR Safety

Effects of Cell Phone Use on Adolescents 
 Research on adolescents suggests that cell phone use disturbs sleep and has adverse effects on memory and cognitive processes, and on the endocrine system.

Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects

  "Wireless radiation exposure limits and a summary of biologic and health effect studies by exposure level."

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
  "Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested."

Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields 
  Compilation of over 500 abstracts of scientific papers published since August, 2016.

Effect of Mobile Phones on Sperm Quality
  Research that examines the effects of wireless radiation on sperm. Eight review papers and more than 40 recent studies.

Thyroid Cancer & Mobile Phone Use
  The evidence is mounting from epidemiologic and biologic studies that heavy cell phone use may cause thyroid cancer.

 NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
  A $30 million study by the National Toxicology Program found that long-term exposure to cell phone radiation caused cancer in male rats and DNA damage in mice and rats.
  
National Toxicology Program: Peer & public review of cell phone radiation study.
  Former NTP scientist defends study; expert reviewers argue that results call for stronger RF exposure guidelines & IARC should upgrade cancer risk.

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer
  Experts convened by NTP found "clear evidence" of cancer from cell phone radiation. Official summary now available.

ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields
  ICNIRP requests public input on its radio frequency radiation exposure guidelines. Former NTP scientist critiques ICNIRP.

5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
  News stories debunk exaggerated benefits of 5G cellular technology.

PowerWatch: 1,670 Scientific Papers on EMF
  This list is a compilation of citations for 1,670 peer-reviewed papers about EMF published in scientific journals from 1979 through 2018.

 Special Issue: Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) in Biology & Medicine
  Nine EMF papers published in a special issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology.

Recent Research on Wi-Fi Effects
  Compilation of recent studies on biologic and health effects from exposure to Wi-Fi radiation.

Research on Smart Phone and Internet Addiction
  Recent studies on dependence or addiction to mobile devices, gaming, or the internet.

  New real-world study of cell phone radiation confirms recommendations in the Department's cell phone safety guidance.

iPhone XS and XR: Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) or RF Exposure
  What are the SAR values for iPhone’s new smart phones? How should consumers use this information?

Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks
  Modern automobiles increasingly incorporate EMF-emitting devices that pose a risk to human health.

Wireless Radiation TV News
  Links to over 150 televised news stories about wireless radiation health risks.

 Recent research and policy developments regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

  City Council reaffirms its commitment to defend landmark cell phone "right to know" ordinance against telecom industry lawsuit in the federal courts.

New Apple Watch Reignites Concerns over Cell Phone Radiation
  How much wireless radiation (cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) is emitted by smart watches? 

 Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use
 The CDC reported that brain cancer incidence among youth 0-20 years of age increased between 2001 and 2014. Also thyroid cancer and lymphoma.

Scientific Evidence of Harm from Cell Phone Radiation: Two Years of Research
  An annotated bibliography which contains 92 papers published in scientific journals during the last two years that report evidence of harm from cell phone radiation exposure.

International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation
  There is an urgent need to recognize hazards associated with excessive exposure to non-thermal levels of electromagnetic fields.

International Scientist Appeal on Electromagnetic Fields & Wireless Technology
  242 scientists from 41 nations including 38 from the U.S. have signed the Appeal.

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies

 Female Infertility and Cell Phone Radiation
  Research that investigates the effects of wireless radiation on female fertility.

 Pregnancy & Wireless Radiation Risks
  Compilation of studies that found harmful effects from fetal exposure to wireless radiation.

5G Moratorium Website Launched
  Official website for 5G Appeal: Over 200 scientists doctors have signed Appeal.

 Electromagnetic Fields Threaten Wildlife
 Research review: EMF is potential risk to insect and bird orientation and plant health.

 EMF Health Impacts and Policy Change Webinar
  Drs. Frank Barnes, De-Kun Li, & Joel Moskowitz discuss EMF research and implications for policy change. Sponsored by Collaborative for Health & the Environment.

Ramazzini Institute Cell Phone Radiation Study Replicates NTP Study
  Ramazzini Institute replicates heart cancer results from NTP cell phone radiation study.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies

Note: This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. I have focused on more recent papers and tried to be parsimonious. I will update this list periodically.

National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation studies

Tumor risk review papers

   Myung et al (2009) Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis. http://1.usa.gov/12wBOmd
   Khurana et al (2009) Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including long-term epidemiologic data. http://1.usa.gov/1jel7s0
   Levis et al (2011) Mobile phones and head tumours: the discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epi studies-how do they arise. http://1.usa.gov/1gzK8vl
   Levis et al (2012) Mobile phones and head tumours: a critical analysis of case-control epi studies. http://bit.ly/1rA9aTM
   WHO (2013) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 102: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://bit.ly/10oIE3o
   Morgan et al (2015) Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review). http://1.usa.gov/1EqL1DF
   Wang Y, Guo X (2016) Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk. http://bit.ly/2o1dVcn
   Bortkiewicz et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis. http://bit.ly/2nVJC5d
   Prasad et al (2017) Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes. http://bit.ly/cellphonebraintumor
   Carlberg, Hardell (2017) Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the Bradford Hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation. http://bit.ly/2p1ovBU
   Miller, et al (2018). Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). http://bit.ly/2rJD7Fu

    Also see Long-Term Cell Phone Use Increases Brain Tumor Risk

Tumor risk studies

   Interphone Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study. http://1.usa.gov/IBm2nJ
   Interphone Study Group (2011) Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. http://1.usa.gov/18CRSNA
   Aydin et al (2011) Mobile phone use & brain tumors in children & adolescents: a multi-center case-control study. http://1.usa.gov/1baLADg  (CEFALO Study)
   Hardell et al (2013) Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. http://1.usa.gov/1c7WF4T
   Hardell et al (2013) Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. http://1.usa.gov/1iu2ORM
   Coureau et al (2014)  Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. http://bit.ly/1DWgzRi
   Grell et al (2016) The intracranial distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: Analyses from the INTERPHONE Study. http://bit.ly/2emIZjz

    Also see: Acoustic neuroma risk and cell phone use studies and Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?

Breast cancer

   West et al (2013) Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones. http://1.usa.gov/1yFRFBH

Brain tumor incidence trends

   Inskip et al (2010) Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. http://1.usa.gov/1DXyCGR
   Zada et al (2012) Incidence trends in the anatomic location of primary malignant brain tumors in the United States: 1992-2006. http://1.usa.gov/1tRnRPJ
   Hardell & Carlberg (2015) Increasing rates of brain tumours in the Swedish National Inpatient Register & the Causes of Death Register. http://bit.ly/1aDHJm
   Devocht (2016) Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls. http://bit.ly/2jJlbZu      corrigendum (2017): http://bit.ly/2Cuq2nU
   Hardell & Carlberg (2017) Mobile phones, cordless phones and rates of brain tumors in different age groups in the Swedish National Inpatient Register and the Swedish Cancer Register during 1998-2015. http://bit.ly/H-C2017
  Philips et al (2018) Brain tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme incidence in England 1995-2015 suggests an adverse environmental or lifestyle factor. http://bit.ly/2KIY4aI

    Also see: Brain Tumor Rates Are Rising in the US: The Role of Cell Phone & Cordless Phone Use

Mechanisms

   Ruediger (2009) Genotoxic effects of RF EMF. http://1.usa.gov/1gzLuX3
   Behari (2010) Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. http://1.usa.gov/1jeogrO
   Juutilainen et al (2011) Review of possible modulation-dependent biological effects of radiofrequency fields. http://1.usa.gov/1eQUXJ3
   Volkow et al (2011) Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. http://1.usa.gov/IHmW2W
   Pall (2013) EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. http://1.usa.gov/VulzLm
   Calderon et al (2014) Assessment of extremely low frequency magnetic field exposure from GSM mobile phones. http://bit.ly/2EA1N7e
   Dasdag & Akdag (2015) The link between RFs emitted from wireless technologies & oxidative stress. http://1.usa.gov/1X9GfT6
   Yakymenko et al (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. http://bit.ly/2qCGM4F
   Barnes & Greenenbaum (2016) Some effects of weak magnetic fields on biological systems: RF fields can change radical concentrations and cancer cell growth rates. http://bit.ly/1WvQGiY
   Nikiforov et al (2016) On a possible mechanism of the effect of microwave radiation on biological macromolecules (Russian language). http://bit.ly/2uR71r4
   Tamrin et al (2016)  Electromagnetic fields and stem cell fate: When physics meets biology. http://bit.ly/2b6Ht3y
   Terzi et al (2016) The role of electromagnetic fields in neurological disorders. http://1.usa.gov/1SVOa2g
   Havas (2017) When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?  http://bit.ly/2DssMS2
   Barnes & Kandala (2018) Effects of time delays on biological feedback systems and electromagnetic field exposures. http://bit.ly/2EZkZPS
  Hinrikus et al (2018) Understanding physical mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect. http://bit.ly/2EwNyoU

Reproductive Health Effects

   LaVignera et al (2011) Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male reproduction: a review of the literature. http://1.usa.gov/1eQXwuv
   Aldad et al (2012) Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 Mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. http://1.usa.gov/18cGEwK
   Divan et al (2012) Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children. http://1.usa.gov/1iu5qPn
   Adams et al (2014) Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. http://bit.ly/1pUnmDq
   Houston et al (2016) The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on sperm function. http://bit.ly/2cJJ2pE


Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

    See: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Exposure

   Kelsh et al (2010) Measured radiofrequency exposure during various mobile-phone use scenarios. http://1.usa.gov/1eQXinm
   Gandhi et al (2012) Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. http://1.usa.gov/1cVJBRD
   Schmid & Kuster (2015) The discrepancy between maximum in vitro exposure levels and realistic conservative exposure levels of mobile phones operating at 900/1800 MHz. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25644546
   Sagar et al. (2018) Comparison of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure levels in different everyday microenvironments in an international context. http://bit.ly/2E5QR10

Blood-Brain Barrier Studies

    See: AirPods: Are Apple’s New Wireless Earbuds Safe? (Blood-Brain Barrier Effects)

Other

  Bandara P, Carpenter DO (2018). Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. The Lancet Planetary Health. http://bit.ly/2GqpJQF
  Belpomme et al (2018). Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. http://bit.ly/IntlEMFreview
   Consumer Reports (2015) "Does cell-phone radiation cause cancer?" http://bit.ly/CRoncellphoneradiation
  Foerster et al (2018). A prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless communication.   http://bit.ly/2v0DkoH
   Huss et al  (2007) Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. http://bit.ly/2wBEmYp
   Fragopoulou et al (2010) Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales. http://bit.ly/2tWiXHP
   Alster, N (2015) Captured agency: How the FCC is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Harvard University. http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured
   International EMF Scientist Appeal (2015) https://emfscientist.org/
   International Appeal: Scientists call for protection from non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure. European J Oncology. 20(3/4). 2015. http://bit.ly/EMFappealEurJ
   Kostoff, Lau (2017). Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature.  http://b.gatech.edu/2uyMAz0
   Hertsgaard, M, Dowie, M (2018). "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation." The Nation, March 29, 2018. http://bit.ly/BigWireless
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, December 14, 2018

Overview Articles

Cellphones and cell towers: Protect your health
The Digital Divide, KBOO-FM (Portland, OR), Dec 14, 2018

Joel Moskowitz is interviewed by Rabia Yeaman. Stream (61 minutes w/ fund-raising breaks) https://kboo.fm/media/69867-digital-divide-121418  or download (38 minutes w/o breaks: 5:15 - 16:15 , 22:15 - 29:40, 36:05 - 48:20, 53:50 - 1:01:15) https://kboo.fm/sites/default/files/episode_audio/kboo_episode.2.181214.1100.3948.69867.mp3 

-- 

 Cellphones and Public Health Policy (30-minute YouTube)
Joel Moskowitz, Collaborative on Health and the Environment Webinar, May 9, 2018

 Are cellphones dangerous for your health?
Kim Komando, Apr 6, 2017 (20 minute podcast)

 Is Cell Phone Radiation Safe?
ProCon.org, Feb 14, 2017

Are you carrying your cellphone too close to your body?
Nara Schoenberg, Chicago Tribune, Jan 26, 2017

Clear Sound, Sleek Styling, and Microwave Radiation?
Katia Savchuk, California Magazine, Oct 18, 2016

You Asked: Should I Worry About Wi-Fi Radiation?
Markham Heid, TIME Magazine, Sep 28, 2016

Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiation
Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times, Aug 8, 2016

Belt Clip? How the U.S. Tests Cellphones for Safety
Study results support push for tougher standards to protect humans from potential health effects
Ryan Knutson, Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2016 

U.S. Cellphone Study Fans Cancer Worries
Researchers found incidences of tumor in rats exposed to low-level radio waves, reigniting debate over safety
Ryan Knutson, Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2016

Should Cellphones Have Warning Labels?
Joel Moskowitz & Larry Junck, Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2016

At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk 
Danny Hakim, New York Times, Jan 1, 2016

Does Cell-Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?
David Schipper, Consumer Reports, September 24, 2015

 Is Cell Phone Radiation Actually Dangerous: We Asked an Expert
Simon Hill, Digital Trends, Apr 21, 2015
Spanish translation by Escuela Sin Wifi: http://bit.ly/radiaciontelefono

Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to Wireless Radiation (one page handout)
Italian translation of original version by Associazione Elettrosmog Sicilia:  http://bit.ly/Y9E4Wy
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 13, 2018

5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype

The CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, has launched an advertising campaign entitled, "The Global Race to 5G." The ads claim that unless the U.S. wins this "global race" to become the first nation to deploy the fifth generation of wireless technology or 5G, we will not reap the economic benefits of this technology. 

 The CTIA claims that "compared to today's 4G networks, 5G will be up to 100x faster, support 100x more devices, and provide a 5x faster response time." Moreover, the association asserts that the nation's wireless industry is prepared to invest $275 billion in 5G which will yield three million new jobs and $500 billion in economic growth. If we win the global race, the "next-generation of wireless will drive $2.7 trillion of new economic benefits to American families and businesses."

 The CTIA has denied for decades that there are adverse health effects from exposure to wireless radiation. By establishing a revolving door between its leadership and the FCC's, the CTIA ensures that the federal regulatory agency maintains the inadequate, obsolete radio frequency exposure limits which the FCC adopted in 1996.

The FCC and federal health agencies have been oblivious to the health concerns raised by more than 240 scientists from 41 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic or health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

This September more than 200 scientists and doctors from 35 countries signed a declaration demanding a moratorium on the planned increase of cell antennas for 5G deployment in the European Union. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.

The following excerpts were extracted from a 23-page special report from RCR Wireless that cuts through much of the hype surrounding the deployment of 5G. The excerpts are direct quotes from the report. RCR Wireless is a trade publication that has reported on the wireless industry and wireless technology since 1982.

Transitioning to a 5G World

Kelly Hill, RCR Wireless, November, 2017

Excerpts from the Report
Hype is certainly high for 5G, given that the industry is still technically in a pre-standard phase and that standalone 5G systems are still some time off.
5G is coming even faster than originally expected. In December, the first official specification from the Third Generation Partnership Project is expected to be released; 5G New Radio will finally make its standardized debut – although like Long Term Evolution, 5G will continue to evolve and be refined in the coming years.
“5G will not replace LTE,” Rysavy Research concluded in an August report for the GSMA. “In most deployments, the two technologies will be tightly integrated and co-exist through at least the late-2020s.”
Although the industry is preparing for 5G, LTE [4G] capabilities will continue to improve in LTE Advanced Pro through the rest of the decade,”  Rysavy wrote .... 5G will eventually play an important role, but it must be timed appropriately so that the jump in capability justifies the new investment.
KT, for example, plans to support two different frequencies from the get-go in its 5G network: 3.5 GHz as an anchor with better propagation, complemented by 28 GHz in dense areas. Given that networks are expected to initially be 4G/5G networks, testing will have to continue to support LTE alongside 5G.
Hurtarte of LitePoint noted that although “millimeter wave” tends to be treated as one category, there are significant differences between the components and frequency planning needed at 28 GHz versus 39 GHz. In addition, although some frequencies are widely agreed upon, there are other frequencies that may get the nod for 5G use: 24 GHz in China, possibly 40-43 Ghz and possibly even above 70 GHz.
There are some major challenges to the success of 5G, which are all interrelated: the move to mmwave, the need for ultra-density, and the question of when the economics of 5G will actually work well enough to take off.
Mmwave [millimeter wave] provides the huge bandwidths that are needed for fast speeds and high capacity, but the higher the frequency, the shorter its range and more susceptible it is to being easily blocked and reflected (thus the need for beamforming in order to focus the energy more tightly). Seasonal foliage, energy efficient glass windows with special coatings, and standard housing materials all present effective barriers to mmwave reaching indoors to customer premise equipment, operators and vendors have found in their field testing.
Denisowski pointed out that fixed wireless is one thing, but moving objects are another. Obstruction, not radiating sources of energy, is likely to be the main cause of interference in 5G systems: vehicles driving back and forth, or even wind farms can scatter microwave radiation.
Density of foliage “plays a big role,” said Thadasina of Samsung, which has been working with a number of carriers on 5G trials. “What we found is that for the mmwave signal, as it penetrated through trees, the thickness of the trees matters. Initially the impedence offered by foliage is linear, but beyond a certain density it is no longer linear … it kills the signal.” Building materials are well-known to play a role in transmission from outdoors to indoors, he added, but the angle of incidence does as well. The difference between 30 degrees to 60 degrees to 90 degrees can create additional impedance, Thadasina said, “some of those things make it challenging in terms of closing the link.” Moisture levels play a role as well, he said ....
Fiber is fuel for 5G, and its prevalence is increasing. SNL Kagan found earlier this year that global fiber residential investment increased sharply in 2016, and that fiber is on track to reach 1 billion subscribers by 2021. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Vertical Systems Group reported that 49.6% of multi-tenant and enterprise buildings had access to fiber last year, compared to only 10% in 2004.

Deloitte said earlier this year that it expects to see $130 billion-$150 billion in “deep fiber” investment in the U.S. over 5-7 years, due to a combination of broadband competition, ensuring 5G readiness, and expanding fiber into new areas.

Murphy of Nokia said that operators should expect that, depending on which frequency they deploy in, they will need 2.5 to 10 times as many sites as they have now. That’s a tall order, especially given that small cell sites in cellular frequencies can take 18 to 24 months to get site approvals – scaling small cells has been hard enough in LTE, with the market moving much more slowly than analysts had predicted or carriers would like.
“It’s going to take a long time,” Einbinder said. “Constructing a cell tower is hard. A micro-cell has a lot of the same issues”: power and fiber and access to a site, which a community may be reluctant to grant – California, for instance, recently rejected a measure passed at the state level that would have streamlined processes for small cells.
... Einbinder thinks that some communities will take initiative and want to be 5G economic centers. While that’s encouraging for operators, it may also mean that 5G coverage maps look very different from the familiar red, blue, yellow and magenta maps indicating nationwide coverage. “The resulting coverage maps might have a lot more to do with [communities] than any economic or technological drivers – it’s going to be driven by local preference.”
While early work estimated that as many as 40 to 50 homes could be covered by a single fixed wireless site, according to Rouault of EXFO, that number has turned out to be around five in testing because of the complexity of beamforming necessary to support multiple homes. “It’s not at the point we would say the verdict is out,” Rouault added. “The technology is proven to work, but to make the business case work, the scale is the problem right now.”
So the biggest question is where a breakthrough is going to happen that becomes the point at which 5G becomes a more attractive investment than LTE. “What can 5G do that other systems can’t? This is where there is no clear answer,” said Hemant Minocha, EVP for device and IoT at TEOCO. There is no 5G requirement for IoT [Internet of Things], he points out, and the business case hasn’t yet been proven out for ultra-low latency (not to  mention that LTE is capable of lower latency than it has achieved to this point in networks).
Key Takeaways:
• The industry is moving quickly toward 5G, with momentum in testing and trials. The first official 5G specification from 3GPP is expected in December, with a protocol-focused release coming in the spring of 2018.
• Many features and architectures in LTE, particularly gigabit LTE, will both underpin future 5G networks and provide lessons learned in making 5G systems work. These include dense fiber deployment, higher-order and massive MIMO, network slicing, virtualization, and mobile edge computing.
• The biggest challenge for 5G lies in a millimeter-wave based RAN, with significant challenges ahead for designing and deploying a workable, optimized and profitable mmwave network on a large scale.

 The RCR Wireless report, "Transitioning to a 5G World," can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/5Ghype.


Related posts

FCC: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony
Troy Wolverton, Business Insider, Dec 14, 2018

Don’t buy a 5G smartphone—at least, not for a while
Ron Amadeo, Ars Technica, Dec 14, 2018

The first ‘real world’ 5G test was a dud
Sean Hollister, The Verge, Dec 4, 2018

 5G Corporate Grail: Smart cities/dumb people?  
Joyce Nelson. Watershed Sentinel, Nov 5, 2018.

 Do we even need 5G at all?
Jeremy Kaplan, Digital Trends, Oct 26, 2018

Why 5G is out of reach for more people than you think
Shara Tibken, c|net, Oct 25, 2018

 Volkswagen a winner as EU set to favour wifi over 5G: draft
Foo Yun Chee, Reuters, Oct 19, 2018

The 5G hype cycle is about to run into a hard truth: Subsidies needed!
Strategy Analytics, Business Wire, Oct 18, 2018
Dexter Johnson, IEEE Spectrum, Oct 11, 2018

Kieren McCarthy, The Register, Sep 19, 2018
John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine, Aug 22, 2018.

Ed Sperling, Semiconductor Engineering. Aug 22, 2018.

The Week In 5G:6/1/2018 – 3GPP Set To Announce Final Phase-1 Standard In June; 5G Sparks Security and Health Concerns Anew
Jof Enriquez, RF Globalnet, June 1, 2018

The ‘Race to 5G’ Is Just Mindless Marketing Bullshit
Karl Bode, Motherboard, May 4, 2018

MWC and the 5G Hype Machine Keep on Giving, and Giving and Giving...
Ernest Worthman, AGL Media Group, Apr 19, 2018
David Lazarus, Los Angeles Times, Jan 9, 2018

Upgrade to 5G Costs $200 Billion a Year, May Not Be Worth It
Olga Kharif and Scott Moritz, Bloomberg, Dec 18, 2017

 Impact of EMF Limits on 5G Network Rollout
Christer Tornevik, ITU Workshop on 5G, EMF and Health, Dec 5, 2017

 Microwave Radiation Coming to a Lamppost near You
Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD, Weston A. Price Foundation, Dec 1, 2017

 5G Is Not the Answer For Rural Broadband
Larry Thompson and Warren Vande Stadt, Broadband Communities. March/April, 2017

 The Next Generation of Wireless -- "5G"-- Is All Hype
Susan Crawford, Wired, Aug 11, 2016

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)