Since its rollout, 5G has been a source of excitement and controversy in the world of telecommunications and science, respectively. Governmental bodies like the CDC and EPA claim it’s safe, some scientists say it is detrimental to our health and environment. Is 5G bad for the environment?

Busy? Try the speed read.

The short answer: 5G is bad for the environment. Or not good. The rollout of the 5G cellular network requires A LOT of energy. In the United States, much of that energy comes from natural gas and fossil fuels. Higher demand for energy = more gas & oil = more environmental issues.

What we know: 5G emits high-frequency (millimeter waves) between 30Ghz and 300Ghz and requires antennas to be in close proximity. Due to the lack of far-reaching signals, 5G will not replace 4G LTE completely. 5G, for now at least, will serve as a complementary tool to its predecessor. This means more radiation in the air and atmosphere.

Big picture: 5G requires exponentially more towers and more energy than 4G in order to function properly. This means more radiation, that we don’t understand the long-term consequences of, and more gas and oil consumption, which we do understand the consequences of.

Why it matters: It boils down to four words: your health + environmental impact. Research varies widely on the subject from A-Okay to Doomsday.

Some experts point to the fact that 5G EMF radiation is non-iodizing, meaning it does not carry enough energy to iodize atoms or molecules, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer recently stated that there is still a potential risk to humans for this kind of exposure.

While there is still uncertainty on the degree to which 5G radiation can impact health, the fact remains that it has an effect. What is not uncertain, however, is the massive amounts of natural resources needed to power this far-reaching network.  We should be hesitant to make our homes, businesses and cities ‘smart’ at the cost of future generations.

Next steps

 If you are concerned about 5G exposure, consider the following steps:

  • Protect yourself by limiting exposure to 5G-enabled devices when possible. 
  • Sign a petition to delay the deployment of the 5G wireless network until institutions understand and enact regulations in accordance with the potential health hazards and environmental impact.

Dig deeper → 5 min

TL;DR

Short answer: The 5G rollout requires a lot of electricity. In the United States, much of that electricity still relies on natural gas and fossil fuels. Higher demand for energy = more gas & oil = more environmental issues.

The novel technology still requires a lot more research and historical data to make rigid assertions about its health impacts, but we do know that 5G radiation can impact the behavior of insects like the honeybee.

Five Fast Facts

  1. 5G emits high-frequency (millimeter wave) between 30Ghz and 300Ghz, so antennas must be in closer proximity to each other to provide clear reception.
  2. Over 215 scientists from 40 different countries appealed to the United Nations for urgent action to reduce the EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure emitting from wireless sources.
  3. Low-intensity, extremely high electromagnetic radiation can impact insect behavior, notably the honeybee.
  4. U.S. telecoms currently use around 31 million megawatt-hours of electricity annually – 5G is estimated to consume up to three times the energy it takes to power LTE networks.
  5. 5G is a battery vampire.

Exploring the Environmental impact of 5G: What We Know

5G is coming. How will this massive output of data change the world?

Since it was introduced, 5G has aroused excitement, curiosity, and caution. With varying claims on its impact on our health and the environment, what should we believe?

There is so much conflicting research and perceptions around 5G it was almost hard to write this article and collect accurate data points. From my research, it seems like people either think there is nothing wrong with 5G at all, or that it is going to kill us all. Like most things in life, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

We know a lot about technology, and what it does. However, we don’t know much about its long-term impact. That is mostly because it hasn’t been around for more than a few years. Is 5G bad for the environment?

Breaking down the science

5G emits high-frequency (millimeter waves) between 30Ghz and 300Ghz, so antennas need to be in closer proximity to each other to provide clear reception. U.S. telecoms and data centers will need to use more energy to power our devices with this new technology.

Due to the lack of far-reaching signals, 5G will not replace 4G LTE completely. 5G, for now at least, will serve as a complementary innovation to its predecessor.

Thus, we need significant amounts of energy to fuel both technologies. This means more radiation in the air and atmosphere. That sounds like a bad thing, so why does it exist?

Because it is great for the economy, stupid! Ok, I’m being cynical here. Still, most new technologies exist because it makes our lives more convenient in the short-term. That stays true regardless of any potential setbacks in the long-term. In this instance, the problem lies in our lack of understanding about the potential harms of new radiation.

The good news – recent studies show that human skin deflects more than half of the radiation emitted from 5G. Yes, this is good. But I’m not ready to throw up 1,000 5G towers in my home state. I’m no scientist, but history is not kind to new or popular trends that may or may not be harmful.

A history of blanket good PR for new innovations

Just ask nuclear plant workers from the 1960s what authorities told them about exposure or watch a Big Tobacco commercial from 1950. Some experts point to the fact that 5G EMF radiation is non-ionizing, meaning it does not carry enough energy to iodize atoms or molecules.

However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer recently stated there is still a potential risk to humans for this kind of exposure,

Radiation isn’t inherently bad

The mere existence of radiation is not enough to chalk something up as carcinogenic or dangerous. 5G emits radiation, but so do bananas. And that radiation is non-iodized, meaning Apparently a routine dental x-ray is the equivalent of 100 bananas. Who knew? To evaluate its potential harm, it really comes down to how close do you live to 5G towers and how often are you interacting with 5G-enabled devices.

EMF (electromagnetic frequency) levels are deemed safe by authorities such as the CDC and EPA, but it doesn’t make it any more natural or agreeable with our biological parts. If I were in charge of the world, I’d roll out 5G slowly and with caution.

But the global economic race to the top is a zero-sum game, so no superpower (echem, U.S. and China) can afford to play chicken with the other. By afford, I mean, win the race of course. Is 5G bad for the environment?

Environmental Impact of 5G

Is 5G bad for the environment?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece about the impacts of streaming. It highlighted the huge energy output required of data centers to keep up with the demand for ubiquitous technology like streaming.

This was before the quarantine seemed imminent. Now, with billions of people stuck at home, more humans are using these streaming services than ever before. Netflix was pressured by the EU last week to use SD rather than HD for content to keep up with the demand and avoid ‘breaking the internet’.

5G emits an extremely high frequency (millimeter wave) which lies between 30Ghz to 300Ghz. Because it is so high-frequency, antennas must be in closer proximity to each other to provide clear 5G reception.

This means a lot more antennas than 5G. Like exponentially more. The towers are about the quarter of the size of standard 3 or 4G cell towers, and many point to this as a reason why it’s not so bad. That’s like saying the construction of 50,000 3-story buildings is less harmful to the environment than 1,000 30-story skyscrapers. Not sure if I get the logic there.

Key Takeaways

5G is here. How will this massive output of data change the world?

  • 5G is the future. We are going to see blazing fast internet speeds on our mobile devices hopefully somewhere along 2020. The improvement in connectivity is indeed going to improve our lives, but likely at the expense of our own health in the long run.
  • This advanced, but untested technology is fast approaching. There is very little that we can do to stop its widespread implementation. One thing that we all should do is understand EMFs better and protect ourselves through the proper choice of products.
  • Try limiting your EMF exposure through the limited use of phones and smart devices. If possible, avoid using 5G phones and device. Or, make use of radiation detectors to know whether you’re near the high levels of EMFs.
  • You can also sign a petition to halt the deployment of the 5G wireless network until we prepare a proper framework of guidelines that consider health hazards and environmental effects. Before we make our homes, businesses, and cities ‘smart’, it’s important to take ‘smart’ decisions when adopting the new technology.

Science remains unclear

All of these scientists have conducted EMF studies and published their results in peer-reviewed journals. These studies show how adverse biological and health effects are caused by EMF sources developed by humans.

In another letter written by Dr. Martin Pall, a biochemistry professor at the Washington State University, discussed the severe biological and health effects resulting from 5G. The letter stated the current FCC guidelines are inadequate, obsolete, and in favor of telecommunications industry.

Pall also believes there are major ill-effects in the long run after 5G implementation such as blindness, hearing loss, skin cancers, male infertility, and thyroid issues.

Surprisingly, the FCC’s perspective on 5G is different. The bureaucratic arm wants the technology deployed as early as possible. Instead of laying out strong and effective guidelines, the agency’s efforts are towards developing a legislature that will prevent local governments from restricting the implementation of 5G.

Building a 5G future with caution

Apart from 5G specific studies, there are numerous other researches that show evidence of harmful effects of low-intensity, extremely high electromagnetic radiation on animals. So in at least some sense, 5G is bad for the environment.

5G is the future. We are going to see blazing fast internet speeds on our mobile devices hopefully somewhere along 2020. The improvement in connectivity is indeed going to improve our lives, but likely at the expense of our own health in the long run.

This advanced, but untested technology is fast approaching, and there is very little that we can do to stop its widespread implementation. However, one thing that we all should do is understand EMFs better and protect ourselves through the proper choice of products. Is 5G bad for the environment? Whether it’s bad for the environment should be equally considered.

Some tips if you’re concerned

Try limiting your EMF exposure through the limited use of phones and smart devices. If possible, avoid using 5G phones and device, or make use of radiation detectors to know whether you’re near the high levels of EMFs. You can also sign a petition to halt the deployment of the 5G wireless network until a proper framework and guidelines considering health hazards and environmental effects are prepared.

Before we make our homes, businesses, and cities ‘smart’, it’s important to make ‘smart’ decisions when adopting the new technology. Only then can we make a serious consideration over whether 5G is bad for the environment, and make an informed decision rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

Do you like Jared Wolf's articles? Follow on social!
No Comments
Comments to: Five Fast Facts: Is 5G bad for the environment?
Breaking through the 5G bias on both sides

Unlock our weekly newsletter

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Sustainable Products





Top Posts

Better brands: Is Lululemon sustainable?
Dole fights food waste with banana leaf packaging
How Nikola Tesla embodied sustainability in the early 1900s
1 on 1 with One Tree Planted Founder Matt Hill

Latest

Sustainable Review is copyright material. All rights reserved.
X

Login

Welcome to SR.

Like, comment, discuss, follow your favorite stories.
Become an Eco-Warrior.

All your sustainability needs, tied up once a week.

Get it in an email.

Access our Weekly recap with digestible news, articles and resources around sustainability.

By subscribing you agree to our Privacy Policy.

Close Bitnami banner
Bitnami