Thus, all relevant mmWave research literature is not yet fully transparent to the readership in this field. It is also possible that quality papers are being omitted in this process ( 4). Literature reviews give readers a narrow view of past research, with many papers ignored or removed at the beginning of the review process.
Public policy regarding the safety of electromagnetic fields (EMF) is often formulated from reviews rather than from individual papers, e.g., the recent SCHEER opinion ( 5). Mapping out the mmWave research landscape It then examines how the science is being conducted and communicated, finding errors in reasoning that cloud judgements and the subsequent conclusions drawn from the existing research. Therefore, this article takes one step back from reviews to the original papers, so as to provide a visible overview of the existing mmWave evidence base. Why this is so cannot be easily understood from existing summaries or reviews ( 4). However, the assumption that 5G technologies are safe is not an evidence-based conclusion ( 3). Unfortunately, these statements of scientific uncertainty have been used by industry and government advisory bodies to reassure the public of the safety of the 5G rollout. Scientific literature reviews investigating biological harm from mmWave usage have concluded … no in-depth conclusions can be drawn… and no confirmed evidence. The long-term effects of these signals on humans and the environment are unknown. The advent of fifth-generation (5G) wireless communication introduces new technology utilizing near-millimeter radiofrequency waves.
0 kommentar(er)
