https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
With improved technology in the cell phone industry, Joel Moskowitz makes us aware of the dangers of these improvements in a perspective which mirrors Wendell Berry and Sherry Turkle. RFR, or radio frequency radiation, in cell phones has been a long-debated potential health concern. Since as early as the 1980s, people have been concerned with the radio waves emitted from computers and cell phones and their link to an increased risk of cancer. The focus has intensified with the prominence of cell phones in modern times as countries now invest millions into testing whether or not long-term exposure affects the lifespan of rats (and therefore likely affects humans). As recently as last year, the US invested $30 million and concluded that, “two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes” (Moskowitz). We are currently upholding standards set in the 1990s despite dramatic improvements in technology so this should be reevaluated.
The main issue with the development of 5G is the new type of wave which it emits in comparison to former iterations. 5G devices will emit millimeter waves in addition to microwaves of the past. Also, cell antennas for 5G devices will need to be located extremely close to one another, increasing the chance of exposure. Millimeter wave radiation has been linked to melanoma, ocular melanoma, and sterility over long-term exposure. These serious threats may not be worth the enjoyment of slightly faster data coverage. Because 5G would be combined with 4G, this causes us to be exposed to multiple types of radiation which, in combination, could cause our risk of harm to increase dramatically. Moskowitz suggests prolonging the development of 5G until we fully understand the dangers involved.
This article relates heavily to Wendell Berry’s and Sherry Turkle’s warnings about technological innovation. Adhering to the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude, pushing for furthered innovation in a field that already suits the needs of the majority of society could lead to more issues than solutions. This technology certainly does not adhere to Berry’s standards for technological innovation as it definitely disrupts something good that already exists and would likely not be cheaper or markedly better than current technology. This also relates to the concept of technological dependence in that we are willing to put ourselves in harm’s way to make something slightly more convenient. In a time when most people are clamoring for improvements in technology, we are reminded that most things in life are not solely beneficial. It will be interesting to see how society weighs public health in comparison to convenience.
Noah Bowman