Jump to content

Petition to stop 5G trials in the Southwest UK

MattPrime
6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Funny thing is we have had an increase in the use of cell phones next to the head and welders in industry in an order of magnitude multiplied,  and yet no increase in any observable cancers or health risks.  Not sure what evidence you purport to have seen but it likely doesn't stand up to 60 years of observational data.

No one died from direct exposure to small levels of EM radiation that i know of, and its non-ionizing doesnt cause cancer directly. But its such a subtle pollutant in our environment that it passes as harmless in short term. 

For most people and scenarios it wont have major health effects but what if combined with all the other environment pollutants and radiation can further increase your health problems.

Also all cell tower/ radio or anything with powerfull emitters have warnings nearby to not get close.

Also there are laws in most civilized countries where you are not allowed to build your house closer than 50-200 meters from high voltage electric lines due to strong EM radiation, if it were completely harmless dont you think such laws wouldnt be put in place or would be removed by now with all the decades research, science and new tech?

 

Keep in mind that when they measure these things they measure 1 at a time and it shows it affects health, but in the cities you are exposed to tens or hundrets of EMF waves, your phone, other peoples phones in commute/work, aside from multiple 2/3/4/5G waves passing through you there is also tens of other wifi routers active everywhere you go.

Dont you think thats excessive pollution added on top of the heavily polluted air, water and food ? even if its small effect i do believe these things add up and not just for cancer but other disease's aswell.

 

This is about prevention and reducing modern life environment pollution that affects us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds very much continuity to the "EMF allergy" thing. All the studies I have seen from EMF dangers are more or less in the class: "eating potato chips gives you higher chance for cancer" and reading further you find out that you need to eat obsessive amounts for a long time to get really noticeably higher chance to get cancer (if you don't die from overweight, malnutrition or other far more deadlier things that come from eating something like 5kg of chips in a day for multiple years, IIRC). Just like people are way overreacting about anything that has "radiation" on it, like how much do you think you would get harmful radiation if you were to stand next to the medium class radiating (tools and other things that have been in direct contact to heavy radiating stuff (the spent fuel rods) and has been radiated enough to radiate themselves enough to be a hazard) burying hole without any shielding? Turns out not really much, about the same as eating 1000-2000 bananas (oraganic, mass farmed, GM or whatever, doesn't matter) (and yes, "banana for a scale" is a real thing in radiation, FYI normal yearly dose of background radiation is around 1825 bananas), and totally a place to let a tour to nuclear powerplant visit (just be sure the visitors don't get any radiating dust on them, but that is very improbable).

 

I'm probably the only person who actually thinks that we don't really want/need 5G. But my reasoning behind it is jsut that the 3G was already kind of hackjob and 4G was even more, now 5G and I just think that it's going to be even worse hackjob and rather than spending money, time and care to develope faster we should spent those resources to develope something more robust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yian88 said:

No one died from direct exposure to small levels of EM radiation that i know of, and its non-ionizing doesnt cause cancer directly. But its such a subtle pollutant in our environment that it passes as harmless in short term. 

For most people and scenarios it wont have major health effects but what if combined with all the other environment pollutants and radiation can further increase your health problems.

Also all cell tower/ radio or anything with powerfull emitters have warnings nearby to not get close.

Also there are laws in most civilized countries where you are not allowed to build your house closer than 50-200 meters from high voltage electric lines due to strong EM radiation, if it were completely harmless dont you think such laws wouldnt be put in place or would be removed by now with all the decades research, science and new tech?

 

Keep in mind that when they measure these things they measure 1 at a time and it shows it affects health, but in the cities you are exposed to tens or hundrets of EMF waves, your phone, other peoples phones in commute/work, aside from multiple 2/3/4/5G waves passing through you there is also tens of other wifi routers active everywhere you go.

Dont you think thats excessive pollution added on top of the heavily polluted air, water and food ? even if its small effect i do believe these things add up and not just for cancer but other disease's aswell.

 

This is about prevention and reducing modern life environment pollution that affects us all.

You are ignoring the fact that the only illness we have really observed increasiung in the last 30 years is dietary allergies (and most of them are self reported meaning they aren't reliable indicators of an issue), so unless you have some sort of evidence linking the massive increase in phone use and welder use to food allergies then there is nothing here to talk about.   

 

Also you are confusing warning labels that companies put on all device to avoid litigation as evidence for adverse health effects.  They are not the same thing,  They are not even in the same realm, one is motivated by lawyers to avoid litigation while the other requires a massive scientific study that yields evidence.

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Welding emits electromagnetic radiation, which can be harmful because it's in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. That's very, very far from the electromagnetic radiation used in 5G communications. And no, that from 5G is not "smaller" - the wavelength is thousands of times larger.

 

Welding also creates magnetic fields, which there is also an exposure limit on. But 5G does not create magnetic fields (or at least they're so exceedingly feeble there's no point even talking about it).

Emitted energy is also a lot higher coming off a welder than 5G radio as well. Terrestrial radio and TV transmission can also be harmful (very), that's why health and safety rules are so strict for the people servicing them. Distance is a huge factor, we don't live nor stand next to those towers and we don't allow output power on the 5G spectrum or any other consumer non restricted spectrum to be high enough to be a health hazard. The health effects have been studied, in great detail many times over many years and that is where those safety standards come from.

 

As we find certain wavelengths to be more problematic than others new standards are introduced but I have yet to ever see any non regulated open spectrum allowed output to be reduced i.e wifi.

 

We'd all be literally dying of brain cancer if every scare article every time a new radio technology was introduce was even close to true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Welding emits electromagnetic radiation, which can be harmful because it's in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. That's very, very far from the electromagnetic radiation used in 5G communications. And no, that from 5G is not "smaller" - the wavelength is thousands of times larger.

 

Welding also creates magnetic fields, which there is also an exposure limit on. But 5G does not create magnetic fields (or at least they're so exceedingly feeble there's no point even talking about it).

You are skipping the fact that 5G is only 1 exposure at a time, you forget there are tens if not hundrets of EMF fields in cities and hundrets of people with cellphones emitting, and high power voltage lines everywhere and all sorts of high power electronics that also emit EMF's, we are overexposed to all kinds of EMF's everyday.

If it were just 5G and then there were no other 2/3/4G, personal wifi routers etc i might agree that it might actually be better with only 1 form of EMF replacing all others but its not replacing its adding on top and what happens when everyone will have a 5G phone everywhere you go like subway, stadium, living apartments and who knows what other new devices emitting/receiving.

We are/will be overexposed to high dosage of EMF's everywhere near/in the cities everyday, they might show small to no health risk when measured in lab conditions with 1 type over small period of time which is nothing compared to what we are exposed everyday.

 

If you want more accurate results in a lab then point multiple 2-5G emitters and like 20 cellphones active nearby a living organism/bacteria/people and then measure its health impacts along with polluted air/water/food and see if/how they amplify the health risks combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yian88 said:

You are skipping the fact that 5G is only 1 exposure at a time, you forget there are tens if not hundrets of EMF fields in cities and hundrets of people with cellphones emitting, and high power voltage lines everywhere and all sorts of high power electronics that also emit EMF's, we are overexposed to all kinds of EMF's everyday.

You forgot to mention the largest source, by more than a country mile, the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, yian88 said:

No one died from direct exposure to small levels of EM radiation that i know of, and its non-ionizing doesnt cause cancer directly.

That sure is a drawn out way of saying that it doesn't cause cancer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You forgot to mention the largest source, by more than a country mile, the sun.

Which further proves my point that we are overexposed, outside of the natural sources.

And all the regulation you mentioned is pointless simply because they mention limits for 1 emitter/source at a time it doesnt take into account combined effects from hundrets of emitters.

This reminds me of the industry setting use limits for everything like food pesticides, antibiotics used in animals etc, but combined together how many chemicals we eat everyday over the limit? lots, its the same thing with EMF's.

 

And for now everyone pretends to forget all the corporations paying or faking tests that show their product is harmless yeah right. We should trust the government since they know what they are doing and they never take bribes and pass laws in favor of corporation, the government cares about people, we live in a utopia and i didnt know about it?

 

 

EDIT: Ill just leave this here

So much for regulation and care of people, 0 fucks given, $ is all that matters like always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, yian88 said:

And all the regulation you mentioned is pointless simply because they mention limits for 1 emitter/source at a time it doesnt take into account combined effects from hundrets of emitters.

Except that all those emitters are so far apart and so far from you that the specific energy radiated on to you is insignificant. The closest source or the source so far and away stronger than any others makes everything else insignificant. Like it's not a case of radiation being additive in way like 10 + 4 + 7 + 4 = 25 it's more like 10 + 0.00001 + 0.00003 + 0.0005 = 10.00054, those 0.000 values make all the difference right?

 

Some people live on high radioactivity rock beds, actually rather high levels, and the whole city hasn't died in hundreds of years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

If you need a source for that you havent been paying enough attention

I have actually done that, and that's exactly why I am asking for a source.

 

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

Even some phone's manual says you should keep your phone a few inches from your body/head/ reproductive organs and i know this since old 2007 when i first found out about 3G. 

That means pretty much nothing. Q-tips has a warning that you should not put the swab inside your ear as well. Warnings on products are to protect companies from potential lawsuits, not actual facts.

 

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

This website is the best i know of and its well explained with links to reasearch, read the QA on this page and there is plenty of links to studies:

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/cell-phones/

Isn't it weird how that website only links to studies for like, 1/4 of the claims they make?

It also tries to paint some effects as serious or harmful when the actual studies makes no such claims.

 

I also find it insulting that they just go "studies showing no effect are done or funded by cell phone companies with biased results".

 

I noticed that the website seems to cherry pick quotes from WHO a lot. Wanna know what WHO actually says about cell phone radiation? Emphasis added by me.

Quote

Are there any health effects?

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

 

Short-term effects

Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body.

 

A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”.

 

Long-term effects

Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

 

Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults.

 

The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.

 

Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

 

But since that website believes that research showing that it's harmless is just funded by cell phone companies, let me link you a few unbiased ones:

UK's Protection Agency:

Quote

 

The 348-page review found no “conclusive” evidence that cellphone use causes cancer, infertility or a threat to brain function.

“Overall, the results of studies have not demonstrated that the use of mobile phones causes brain tumours or any other type of cancer,” the group said. “The evidence suggests that radio frequency field exposure below guideline levels does not cause symptoms in humans.”

 

The Federal Communications Commission:

Quote

 

We are confident that, as set, the emissions guidelines for devices pose no risks to consumers.

 

American Cancer Society:

Quote

 

As noted above, the RF waves given off by cell phones don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren't able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.

 

Some scientists have reported that the RF waves from cell phones produce effects in human cells (in lab dishes) that might possibly help tumors grow. However, several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think most people wouldn't want to be the an unwilling test subject. If it turns out to be harmful then the people who had it tested on them would be harmed in the process. Why would anyone want that role?

 

5 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

I also do not want 5G around me

I bet you'd both happily jump on an Airplane though...

 

The total misunderstanding of radiation is pretty comical. Unless it's Gamma or X Ray strength radiation is pretty harmless to humans. Down below the Alpha wavelength (which is where radio sits) it's almost totally harmless.

 

 

Main Rig:-

Ryzen 7 3800X | Asus ROG Strix X570-F Gaming | 16GB Team Group Dark Pro 3600Mhz | Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe Gen 4 | Sapphire 5700 XT Pulse | Corsair H115i Platinum | WD Black 1TB | WD Green 4TB | EVGA SuperNOVA G3 650W | Asus TUF GT501 | Samsung C27HG70 1440p 144hz HDR FreeSync 2 | Ubuntu 20.04.2 LTS |

 

Server:-

Intel NUC running Server 2019 + Synology DSM218+ with 2 x 4TB Toshiba NAS Ready HDDs (RAID0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yian88 said:

You are skipping the fact that 5G is only 1 exposure at a time, you forget there are tens if not hundrets of EMF fields in cities and hundrets of people with cellphones emitting, and high power voltage lines everywhere and all sorts of high power electronics that also emit EMF's, we are overexposed to all kinds of EMF's everyday.

If it were just 5G and then there were no other 2/3/4G, personal wifi routers etc i might agree that it might actually be better with only 1 form of EMF replacing all others but its not replacing its adding on top and what happens when everyone will have a 5G phone everywhere you go like subway, stadium, living apartments and who knows what other new devices emitting/receiving.

We are/will be overexposed to high dosage of EMF's everywhere near/in the cities everyday, they might show small to no health risk when measured in lab conditions with 1 type over small period of time which is nothing compared to what we are exposed everyday.

 

If you want more accurate results in a lab then point multiple 2-5G emitters and like 20 cellphones active nearby a living organism/bacteria/people and then measure its health impacts along with polluted air/water/food and see if/how they amplify the health risks combined.

Radio transmitters and high-voltage power lines are completely different. This "EMF" thing makes no sense. Every physically palpable thing is an electromagnetic field too. Should you be scared of EMF because your hand doesn't go through the desk because of the mutually repulsive electromagnetic fields?

 

There is zero evidence we're overexposed. The biggest EM radiation source around, by far, is the Sun. Only the UV portion of its emission can hurt you under normal circumstances, and 5G doesn't use UV radiation.

 

It's hilarious to claim 5G equipment is emitting "high dosage" when the power involved is so tiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I bet you'd both happily jump on an Airplane though...

 

Yes, I would!

There is a big difference because a flight is at most 12h long and you do not fly often. 5G, on the other hand, exposes you daily many hours.

 

I am subscribed to thunderf00t and watched his video when it was released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You forgot to mention the largest source, by more than a country mile, the sun.

Inb4 nutjobs not only wear tinfoil hats but also buy SPF100 sunscreen lotions in bulk... xD

Spoiler

Technically, anything above SPF50 doesn't offer more protection against UV rays. 

I have commented on the said topic months ago so I won't regurgitate it again but in actuality, sun exposure from 10AM-3PM especially during summer has a way more higher cancer risk that sleeping with a phone beside one's head. 

There is more that meets the eye
I see the soul that is inside

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right brace yourselves for my recollection of physics and chemistry.

 

E = hν

100GHz 5G

6.62607004 × 10-34  x 1 x 1011 = 6.626x10-23 J

10EHz Gamma Ray

6.62607004 × 10-34  x 1 x 1019= 6.626x10-15 J

 

Right so the ionization energy of Francium is 400kJ/mol but lets look at a single atom

 

So 

 

400000 /  6.022 x 1023 = 6.6423 x 10-19 J

 ^ Amount of energy required at absolute minimum for ionization to happen.

 

I was being ridiculously generous by the way, your body is harder to ionize.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mhammonde said:

Came across this article whilst browsing information on 5G where I live in the UK .... Interesting points being raised!

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-trial-of-5g-on-the-isles-of-scilly-and-cornwall

 

Cheers

Matt

 

I mean I don't agree that 5G can be harmful to us but I do believe we should get complete 4G coverage before we start introducing 5G. Although it would be cool to be able to game on 5G anywhere.

There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don’t

bulgara, oh nono

Multipass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@mhammonde your topic does not meet the guidelines for this section, please update or your topic will be locked or moved.

 

Quote

When creating a thread in the News subforum, please make sure your post meets the following criteria:

  • Your thread must include some original input to tell the reader why it is relevant to them, and what your personal opinion on the topic is. This needs to be MORE than just a quick, single comment to meet the posting guidelines.
  • Your thread must include a link to at least one reputable source. Most of the time, this should be a respected news site.
  • Your thread should also include quotes from the cited source(s). While you shouldn't just copy the entire article, your quote should give the reader a summary of the article in a way that gives the key details, but also leaves room for them to read the full article on the linked website. Please use quote tags to show that you have copied this content from another site.
  • The title of your thread must be relevant to the topic and should give a reader a good idea of the contents of the thread. Copying the title of the source is permitted but absolutely not required. It should be to the point and not be done in such a way as to mislead a reader, such as clickbait, etc.
  • If your article is about a product or some form of media, images are always appreciated, although they are not required.

~Source;

 

 

COMMUNITY STANDARDS   |   TECH NEWS POSTING GUIDELINES   |   FORUM STAFF

LTT Folding Users Tips, Tricks and FAQ   |   F@H & BOINC Badge Request   |   F@H Contribution    My Rig   |   Project Steamroller

I am a Moderator, but I am fallible. Discuss or debate with me as you will but please do not argue with me as that will get us nowhere.

 

Spoiler

  

 

Character is like a Tree and Reputation like its Shadow. The Shadow is what we think of it; The Tree is the Real thing.  ~ Abraham Lincoln

Reputation is a Lifetime to create but seconds to destroy.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.  ~ Winston Churchill

Docendo discimus - "to teach is to learn"

 

 CHRISTIAN MEMBER 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is, they have been talking about Micro cell sites on utility poles. But not much being said about how much power those transmitters will be allowed to transmit at. WiFi routers are heavily regulated to make sure they dont cook you. While I dont think non-ionizing radiation is a health issue, but these are Microwaves and last I seen Microwave's can cook things. I rather not walk near a micro cell site and get cooked from standing too close. 

I just want to sit back and watch the world burn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think most people wouldn't want to be the an unwilling test subject. If it turns out to be harmful then the people who had it tested on them would be harmed in the process. Why would anyone want that role?

You're an idiot if you think you're not already being subjected to those wavelengths. And even more so if you really think that all of those things haven't been tested. The simple fact is, these are low energy, non-ionizing radiation, which pose no more threat to us than light itself. 

 

january_2016_spectrum_wall_chart.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

My concern is, they have been talking about Micro cell sites on utility poles. But not much being said about how much power those transmitters will be allowed to transmit at. WiFi routers are heavily regulated to make sure they dont cook you. While I dont think non-ionizing radiation is a health issue, but these are Microwaves and last I seen Microwave's can cook things. I rather not walk near a micro cell site and get cooked from standing too close. 

A microwave has trouble heating anything unless it's operating well above 500watts,  the average MW being 900Watts and many over 1000Watts.  To put that in perspective the average wifi router is less than 0.1W with some being as high as 0.4W.  It's not so much that they are designed not to hurt, but that they are designed not to interfere with other routers.  The router will become horrible to setup in busy/congested environments long before it becomes harmful to living cells.

 

Edit, I should add that 5Ghz wifi can get to 4W.  due to the size of the wave it needs it in some cases (long distance).

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

A microwave has trouble heating anything unless it's operating well above 500watts,  the average MW being 900Watts and many over 1000Watts.  To put that in perspective the average wifi router is less than 0.1W with some being as high as 0.4W.  It's not so much that they are designed not to hurt, but that they are designed not to interfere with other routers.  The router will become horrible to setup in busy/congested environments long before it becomes harmful to living cells.

 

Edit, I should add that 5Ghz wifi can get to 4W.  due to the size of the wave it needs it in some cases (long distance).

Also of note that even if your microwave shielding was 100% non-functional (say, the door was busted off), you only need to stand a few feet away from it before the heating effects become null.

 

Even with a micro-station on top of a utility pole, you'd be dozens of feet away at worst. The average height of a utility pole in the US is around 40 feet (~12 meters).

 

Apparently existing Macro Stations (Meaning, huge full size Cellular Tower for a major city in a developed country), you're looking at 3000-6000W. These sites are anywhere from 100-200 feet tall.

 

Considering a Micro-station would require significantly less power to operate, I think we're all totally fine here.

 

If 5G was going to fuck us all, 4G, 3G, 2G, FM Radio, WIFI, Satellite Radio, Satellite TV, and Terrestrial TV would have all done us in already.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

You're an idiot if you think you're not already being subjected to those wavelengths. And even more so if you really think that all of those things haven't been tested. The simple fact is, these are low energy, non-ionizing radiation, which pose no more threat to us than light itself. 

 

january_2016_spectrum_wall_chart.jpg

I never once said that I believe they are harmful. I was just saying that not wanting to be the first test subject is a perfectly rational thing. Also the fact that people always bring up it being nonionizing I always found strange. Just because it can't directly mess with your cells DNA doesn't make it not harmful. I just think the technology is highly impractical and not worth it. I haven't had any issue with speed of mobile data so far so I don't see the need for 5g. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

My concern is, they have been talking about Micro cell sites on utility poles. But not much being said about how much power those transmitters will be allowed to transmit at. WiFi routers are heavily regulated to make sure they dont cook you. While I dont think non-ionizing radiation is a health issue, but these are Microwaves and last I seen Microwave's can cook things. I rather not walk near a micro cell site and get cooked from standing too close. 

Just because a microwave might operate at 2.4 ghz does not mean that 2.4 ghz is a magic "cook things" frequency, 2.4ghz is used because its in the ISM band in the usa. wifi routers have power limits as to make sure people wont step on top of each other. If everyone could have 25 watt transmitter for their wifi hotspot, the current implementation would not be feasible because of bandwidth limitations. Limiting range is one way to get around that. Its not to keep router from cooking you. If you actually want to cook something using rf, the design of a system is going to be all about impedance matching to couple the energy where you want it to be used.

Case: Phanteks Evolve X with ITX mount  cpu: Ryzen 3900X 4.35ghz all cores Motherboard: MSI X570 Unify gpu: EVGA 1070 SC  psu: Phanteks revolt x 1200W Memory: 64GB Kingston Hyper X oc'd to 3600mhz ssd: Sabrent Rocket 4.0 1TB ITX System CPU: 4670k  Motherboard: some cheap asus h87 Ram: 16gb corsair vengeance 1600mhz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×