Arno Thielens, Duncan Bell, David B. Mortimore
Mark K. Greco, Luc Martens, Wout Joseph
2018 · Scientific Reports
Abstract Insects are continually exposed to Radio-Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields at different frequencies. The range of frequencies used for wireless telecommunication systems will increase in the near future from below 6 GHz (2 G, 3 G, 4 G, and WiFi) to frequencies up to 120 GHz (5 G). This paper is the first to report the absorbed RF electromagnetic power in four different types of insects as a function of frequency from 2 GHz to 120 GHz. A set of insect models was obtained using novel Micro-CT (computer tomography) imaging. These models were used for the first time in finite-difference time-domain electromagnetic simulations. All insects showed a dependence of the absorbed power on the frequency. All insects showed a general increase in absorbed RF power at and above 6 GHz, in comparison to the absorbed RF power below 6 GHz. Our simulations showed that a shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%.
Metadata: Crossref. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions
Affected, absolutely. Unknown to what degree or if it would be any worse then the billions smashed on windshields or fogged out of existence every year. Interesting paper on using EM simulations on finely detailed insect models to determine net energy absorption and associated properties: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3
There are plenty of published, peer reviewed papers out there about this stuff, it's just that you aren't looking at them. For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 Frankly, I'm tired of reductionist, rationalist attitudes that all but ignore the vast scope of nonlinear sciences that have emerged over the last 75 years. It's not much better than climate denial. Just less blatant.
It's true that we don't have the full picture. Nothing is certain yet, but the most likely health effects will be indirect. Two areas of concern are effects on insect populations, which are already in collapse, and effects on bacterial development, including potentially causing resistance to antibiotics. These studies would be a good place to start if you're interested in more information: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22271-3 https://doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2012.691461
Here's a study that looked at microwave absorption in insects at different frequencies (picture): https://media.springernature.com/lw900/springer-static/image... "All insects showed a general increase in absorbed RF power at and above 6 GHz, in comparison to the absorbed RF power below 6 GHz. Our simulations showed that a shift of 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3–370%." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3 It doesn't seem like pseudoscience to me either. In fact it looks to me like more real science needs be done on this subject, to figure out if there is a real danger or not.
More from the same topics.
Dan Tong, David J. Farnham, Lei Duan +4
Abstract If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability.
Steven M. Paul, Daniel S. Mytelka, Christopher T. Dunwiddie +4