The Terrifying Potential of 5G
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
https://hackaday.com/2019/04/16/5g-buildout-likely-to-put-we...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01305-4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/13/fcc-auctio...
-Prof. Trevor Marshall, Director Autoimmunity Research Foundation, California
3G is about 10% slower.
Around here, they send all alerts out at the “incoming nuclear missile” level.
The local track record has been pretty awful, including absurd lack of geo targeting, too late, referencing a tiny town that nobody has heard of, lack of useful timestamps (last seen at X, but when?), an early morning “end amber alert” alert and the “no charges, father picks up his son from school all the time, no further details will be released”. I think there have only been 5 alerts, 4 were in the above categories and the last still isn’t clear if the child was in danger.
That sounds weird. It's a much higher frequency than "UHF" ("ultra high frequency"... radio), but the wavelength of red is over a thousand times shorter. I think of "high frequencies" as being UV and beyond.
https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/213/do-photocopy-m...
> Xerox machines absolutely ooze radiation
Nobody gives a shit.
It’s irrelevant because even if people didn’t given a shit about pollution , wouldn’t mean that they should not give shit to other risks.
True, but yet, noone cares: - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/london-reach... - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/12/london-h... - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44612642
You can point to the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which means you can't drive in to very central London (where most people work, but almost noone actually lives there) with a petrol car or van that is older than 13 years. Doesn't sound ultra low to me, compared to hybrids have been produced for more than a decade and electric cars are available to the mainstream. And even this very low bar is enforced to the very inner boroughs only. The 50 years old diesel trains that are running its per-carriage engines at the platform when idle, are an exception of course.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/way...
Also, spamming the thread with multiple unsubstantiated posts in the hope that one of them sticks is not at all the behaviour of a crank. The problem I have with this is that if at one point in the future there is indeed a health risk and skepticism is required, such position will be undermined by years of publishing/posting nonsense like these, where the same pseudo-scientific bullshit is repeated over and over for 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.
As a side note, I used to work in the telecom industry for a decade, sometimes having dozens of mobile phones tested in a day, and at some point using a test antenna. You can bet your ass that I kept myself informed with health risks and would have found something else to do had there been any doubt. So would have my colleagues, and so would have consultants that could have walked out on a dime. Like many people in that space I worked for an independent mid-sized company: to think that tens of thousands of people in that industry, scattered among many independent entities, would let themselves be exposed to radiation risks and that they would not say anything is just dumb.
Accoding to AngelList newsletter that I read: https://sg-mktg.com/MTU1NTYwNzI3Nnw4YzJTNW5sbi1uQW9ScXVCOElJ...
Investing in 5G in some of the areas with predicted boom might just turn out to be too expensive in comparison with the expected revenue.
Not sure if there's any hope for the USA to break free of carrier oligopoly.
We need some orders of magnitude reductions in data prices.
If I’m paying dollars for each gigabyte, making them faster serves to use to me.
5g is theoretically fast enough to compete with landline ISPs directly in most of the US. I suspect we’ll start to see landline internet with the same regard as landline phones in a decade or so. Especially as personal computers (rather than smart devices) continue to fall out of favor in home use.
The sun does emit ionizing radiation, and that will hurt you with long-term, unprotected exposure, but worrying about non-ionizing radiation at very low-powers doesn't make sense when ionizing radiation from air-travel and radioactivity from concrete provide orders of magnitude more mutagenic micromorts than mobile signals ever will.
The fusion reaction is obviously is less powerful to our receivers than 5G, otherwise we'd not have 5G. UV is obviously more powerful to our DNA than telcom, otherwise we'd all have noticed an increase in melanoma on our thighs and ears.
Antenna size and shape is important relative to signal , as is total energy, impedence, etc.
DNA single and double strand breaks.
Oxidative damage.
Disruption of cell metabolism.
Increased blood brain barrier permeability.
Melatonin reduction.
Disruption to brain glucose metabolism.
Generation of stress proteins.
Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen.
To compare, your wifi router does a max of 4000mW transmission, which is 4W
If 5G is much worse than 4G I'm literally getting lead-lined underwear. It's already a bother to keep my phone sufficiently far from my brain and balls while typing this comment.
Then again, my sensitivity is way too high. I can also feel whether my microwave is turned on through the wall!
A single 60W incandescent bulb (which has about 10% efficiency for its lighting) transfers more heat to your tissues than a stack of 10 home routers.
Like the difference between a lightbulb and a tissue-penetrating laser strobe.
Interesting... What've been your findings?
It works best to aim for an "HDR" effect (as a baseline, or when it's at all uncomfortable), so look around the sun and only for a small part of the time directly into the sun, aiming to make the sun more defined (vs. "overexposed white area").
For safe fun, use a candle instead. A real burning one, LEDs are Not Nice for staring at.
Your microwave is a Faraday cage, it's not supposed to let microwaves leak out -> https://www.amazon.com/Microwave-Leak-Detector/s?k=Microwave... something like this might tell you if it's damaged.
A double blind test where you are deafened so you can't hear it, and don't know when it's on/off, would be interesting.
The most I found was 1 watt which is allowed by the FCC
I think you have typo on the decimal points on the watts.
2.4 ghz tends to be 200mW, and 5ghz max tends to be 4000mW. I wanted to be as pessimistic as possible to still make my point.
Although with stuff like 4x4 MU-MIMO routers or dual network routers with one for 2.4ghz and for 5ghz, you could say it's 4 radios at once = 16W max. Radiation per inch of 4x4W power sources is different than one 16W source, so it's not 1:1.
People living near cell phone antennas have severe health issues and even phone companies don’t debate this. They are required to put health hazard warning around those antennas for certain perimeter and homes are not allowed to be built close to them. Unfortunately those limits are absolute bare minimum. There huge amount of “research” phone companies have funded to backup these minimum limits and no independent researchers would agree with it. For 5G, numbers of antennas are going to increase by 10X and if you live in city, there is very good chance you are not too far from it.
I'm not to good with low level stuff but this might go down to the famous wave/particle thing where one of the experiments that supported the particle explanation was that beneath a certain energy the radiation would not ionize a given material, however long they exposed it and however much radiation it was.
(Anyone who knows this better feel free to correct me, this is just what I remember from school when I'm maybe more than twice as old.)
It's similar to radio transmission.
The closer some base station antenna is, the lower the power your smartphone needs to reach the base station. Having many base stations reduces the effective field power.
Modern LTE and 5G also has something that is called beamforming. Instead of shouting in all directions, the base station restricts the radio signal to the direction of the smartphone. Other won't hear the noise.
It's not correct that "faster data" means there's more "EM things" around us. Basically we use the radio transmission more efficiently.
tldr: if you wanna avoid radiation, be close to a base station where powersaving kicks in.
Please describe by which mechanism dna molecules are damaged by non ionizing radiation (e.g. a cell phone tower).
-Prof. Girish Kumar, Professor at Electrical Engineering Department at IIT Bombay
For air: The 60GHz allows reduced cell size. This makes it more realistic for you to opt out of receiving everyone else's emissions (by walking away). Also, air is not not "fundamental to biological life" (anaerobic organisms exist). More seriously, at 60GHz and above skin penetration is very, very shallow.
Active denial systems use a slightly higher frequency (95GHz) and much higher radiated power (30kW-2.5 MW says Wikipedia).
The social aspects of IOT have as much to do with 5G as with, say, smartphones in general. That's just anti-tech. It can be discussed, but it's not an interesting argument in the context of whether 5G is harmful.
You are making emotional arguments that are not grounded in technical arguments.
[1] Please refer to the chart in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_...