Talk:5G

Dead birds shock!
You might want to include this. A story which has been reported widely.

But, even more importantly, this.Hubert (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

5G and analogue
Can the relationship between the two be clarified - see eg this. (And, slightly related question, why does my TV remote have a 'switch to analogue' button?) Anna Livia (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Analog(ue) cell phones were 1G, meaning the first generation. 2G was the first digital generation, but that is probably not worth mentioning in a 5G article. Your TV remote obviously has nothing to do with cell phones, but television used to be broadcast in analog, the switch-over to digital broadcast happened around 2009-2011, depending on the geographical area. By 'TV remote' I am assuming you are referring to your DVR remote. The 'switch to analogue' button is referring to the output, to switch between HDMI output (digital) and composite output (analog). This allows you to use your digital tuner console/DVR with an old pre-digital television or VCR using an RCA analog cable, but you can only get a High Definition (HD) signal through a digital HDMI cable. FairDinkum (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

5G and Digital Privacy
From what i've heard, 5G may allow ever further encroachment on private data. The best reasons I can think of this nya are:


 * 1) The closer proximity of towers allowing better location of phones (all cell towers inherently allow cell providers to track location to a certain degree nya) (this closer proximity is required for higher-frequency bands due to the power requirements for transmitting through objects that otherwise would absorb the waves nya)


 * 1) increased bandwidth allowing streaming of data more rapidly


 * 1) Something about the protocol

Out of these, the first is definitively true (it is simply a matter of physics), the second *may* be true, but it may have negligable effect (i don't know for sure nyaa), and the third I am unsure about and the latter two, any research/articles/etc. on this would be appreciated nya ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls]  talk  05:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

5G woo
A very nice one, too: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52810220 Why do I still bother working? It is all so easy. - 194.246.46.15 (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Performance vs. LTE @ 3,5 GHz
One thing that could be addressed is how much do current iterations of 5G do actually improve performance when compared to running LTE on the same frequencies. 3,5 GHz capable LTE clients would be lot cheaper than 5G clients, though prices of the latter seem to be decreasing. --2001:999:50:3C79:7F74:FD3B:C7A7:5B88 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Simple means of disruption
This - provides a means of recycling/upcycling old equipment and reducing landfill as well. Anna Livia (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick note
There is absolutely not a consensus that 5G or even other forms of EMF radiation is safe, it's probably not horrible but the language suggests it's been studied & is 100% harmless. Just from one page off of pubmed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29402696/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540320/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31793559/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32774488/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29655646/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2600:1700:47d0:a650:3510:3c2:c6e4:c420 / talk / contribs
 * I went ahead and reverted the recent edits because the primary reference was an article by Ronald Kostoff. Based on other documents of his, Ron Hostoff is an aerospace engineer (eg someone who might have limited information on electromagnetic radiation) and his "commentary" in the link I found to be rather conspiracy oriented. I'd put the opinions of, say, a science writer who actually has a PhD with work in ultraviolet light over that. Just because they are on PubMed doesn't mean that they are scientific consensus -- beyond the quacks ( is another quack in this copy-paste list) or those out of depth (Cindy L. Russell is a plastic surgeon who is part of "Physicians for Safer Technology" which is all-in advocacy against cell phone radiation), you'll also find early, low-quality studies on 5G.
 * Non-visible radiation is a scary thing to many people, I think, because it's invisible. I imagine people would be scared shitless if I asked them to stand next to a device emitting radiation, pumping out 10s (or even 100s) of watts of radiation at you with a wide spectrum between 400 and 700THz! Fortunately, I'm merely asking them to stand next to a common light bulb, which people seem to know instinctively as "mostly harmless". 5G simply isn't powerful enough energy wise to do all the things people say it does. I mean someone went apeshit over RF readings that were 0.026293 watts per square meter... and this was near a 5G mast. That's nothing. For a comparison, solar radiation has an by the time it hits the earth's atmosphere. A lot of that gets filtered out by the time it reaches the surface, but by the time it gets there it's usually far, far more than 0.026293 W/m2. You're far better off, frankly, if you stop fearing the 5G radiation quite as much, and more fear the sun radiation. (Wear sunscreen. :) ) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * gotcha - i would say maybe change it from overwhelming evidence at least though, as there are *some* valid concerns - but not many. my bad!
 * only thing i'm gonna say though is that different frequencies can have somewhat different effects, comparing it to visible light and uv isn't 100% valid


 * here's an article on it as well: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: Miceneme / talk / contribs
 * Incidentally, the link I posted from David Robert Grimes is a response to Joel Moskowitz (who btw is also part of Physicians for Safe Technology). I think there is a more solid argument from some that we could use more testing before we roll this out, and I'd buy that to some degree (though it's possible to be overcautious too!). I changed "overwhelming" to "scientific consensus" as that's more neutral and accurate, from my viewpoint. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PanGalacticGargleBlaster thanks my dude! just letting you know i modified it a bit again with more credible things & added a health effects section. i made sure it doesn't sound like it's suggesting bullshit though & found better quality studies. Miceneme (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)