You also get EM radiation from the electric wiring in your house, lightbulbs, the sun and so on. It's also about the strength of that EM radiation that determines is if it's harmful.
To compare, your wifi router does a max of 4000mW transmission, which is 4W
The 50/60hz wiring radiation is a mild annoyance compared to 2.4 and 5Ghz wifi (I prefer 5Ghz because it seems to transfer less heat to my tissues); I sporadically use 4G on my phone so I don't need a permanent wifi installation in my room. Contrarily, I've found that staring into the sun, early in the morning for seconds up to a few minutes, is quite pleasant.
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!
No it isn’t. The antenna is basically just a flashing light bulb for 5 GHz. 5 GHz transfers way less energy into your body than visible or infrared light because it’s not absorbed as readily and each photon has less energy. It’s like the difference between a blue lightbulb and a red lightbulb.
It's good for my mood and concentration, and it supports my sleep rhythm. I shouldn't focus on seeing into the sun itself, though I have seen it look 3D now, super cool! That hurt my eyes for a day or so, they felt mildly bruised. It wasn't so bad, as I've hurt my eyes quite a lot before, playing around with a green laser with diffractor. That felt like "100+ small cuts in my retina" that lasted for over a week.
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.
Where are you getting that information from ?
My outdoor Wifi CPE has maximum Tx Power of 23dBm which is about 200mW, which gives me signal strenght of -65dBm and my internet tower is approx 6Km far.
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.
Non-ionizing radiation does not mean harmless radiation. Low power radiation could be quite harmful when exposure in 24x7 for long term. Power levels reduces probability of DNA damage but if exposure is long term then it’s cumulative effect.
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.
Citation much needed, for this is contrary to anything I've learned (engineer, have worked with radio and radar systems for years, and the only case that I know that hasn't been debunked was from the crew of an electronic warfare ship.)
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.)
If you're talking to a person 1m away from you, both of you can whisper. If you're 50m away, both of you need to shout.
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.
The base station transmits with higher power and much more frequently than your cell phone does (unless you are the only one served by the tower and tx more than rx for some reason). If you are concerned about radiation from telcom / cell, living near a base station is a bad idea.
“The new 5G wireless technology involves millimeter waves (extremely high frequencies) producing photons of much greater energy than even 4G and WiFi. Allowing this technology to be used without proving its safety is reckless in the extreme, as the millimeter waves are known to have a profound effect on all parts of the human body.”
-Prof. Trevor Marshall, Director Autoimmunity Research Foundation, California
You should re enable it. Amber alerts are when a kid has been kidnapped and is probably going to raped or killed. You should do your part to watch for the perpetrator.
I still get them as a push notification through news sources.
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.
This is both irrelevant and wrong. It’s wrong because people do give a shit and these cities are trying to come up with a solution like limiting or completely banning certain pollutants like cars or burning coal etc. The air quality is constantly monitored since years and EU country’s have implemented quite strict environmental policies.
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.
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.
I meant it has been happening since the EU-wide regulation came out. London reaches the critical yearly level at the first weeks of January and only cosmetic changes have been applied. E.g. a 20-year-old, rusty diesel truck, that makes ~£500/day gets away with £12.5 fee instead of ban from Greater London. The actual polluters won't invest in newer vehicles, because the lease is more expensive than just £12.5 per day.
If you look up that "professor" you will see him quoted saying for the same thing for UMTS (that's 3G...), and spouting non-sense on how he has developed some gizmo to detect "Electromagnetic Sensitive people". Yeah.
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.
“Along with the 5G there is another thing coming – Internet of Things. If you look at it combined the radiation level is going to increase tremendously and yet the industry is very excited about it…. they project 5G/IoT business to be a $7 trillion business.”
-Prof. Girish Kumar, Professor at Electrical Engineering Department at IIT Bombay
I'll tell you more. Earth is heated by an ongoing nuclear fusion reaction which emits a wide spectrum of radiation between 430-770THz. The radiation density during daytime is about 1KW/m^2, and some of it is proven to directly cause cancer. Is that "terrifying" enough?
There's no evidence that phones cause cancer (nor impotence). It's a reasonable assumption to make, but the evidence doesn't back it up:
> The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
To be fair, overheating your scrotum will in fact mess up your fertility. The need for temperature regulation is the whole reason we have them in the first place.
The fix for that is to wear boxers though. Or not wear anything at all. Your phone is receiving most of the time. And when it transmits it does so very briefly and coalesces background transmissions into a single burst to conserve battery. There's just not enough transmit power to heat anything up, and even if there was, blood would carry the heat away quite readily.
The majority of the power in a smartphone is used to light up the screen. If your phone is in your pocket, it's a reasonable assumption that the screen is turned off.
It's not impossible, but the phone would have to be quite inefficient to have any measurable effect. Laptops are probably a bigger problem if you keep them in your lap regularly, since in that scenario they do operate at full power close to your scrotum.
:) I used some of that free fusion power to charge my laptop around lunch time with 5W left over to trickle-charge a bank of 200 Wh SLA batteries. (100W panel + MPPT CC)
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.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the class of '99
Wear Sunscreen
If I could offer you only one tip for the future,
Sunscreen would be it
The long term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists
Comparing 5G to the dangers of sunlight, which is major public health issue, actually makes me somewhat hesitant to reject those fears, where before I would have filed it in the same category as chemtrails.
I don't understand. There's radiation around, so we shouldn't worry about radiation?
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.
Maybe I’m not forward thinking enough, but I’ve yet to hear any compelling new use cases for 5G. I’m doubtful it’ll be of much use for self-driving cars or robotic surgery, and 4G is more than fast/low latency enough for my phone needs and the needs of most people. I really don’t see how 5G is going to add anywhere close to $12T to the economy.
Initially I guess it'll be used for places where there are a lot of people and the extra bandwidth is needed. Stadiums, airports, convention centers, etc.
I don’t think it will be revolutionary in countries with good last mile high speed. IMO 5g will neutralize most of the benefits of last mile deployments and be much cheaper to deploy. This will be a major boon for overstretched 4g networks in the developing world.
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.
Think of any wireless device that a human directly or indirectly interacts with that is connected to the internet. Almost all of those will be eventually replaced with faster alternatives. Boom, 5G everywhere in 10 years.
If we should be concerned about the deployment of 5G, it's due to the fact that it will render our weather satellites nearly useless. The frequency they chose for 5G just so happens to be about the same frequency as water's resonance. 5G cell towers would show up as huge points of water concentration and we have no idea how to work around this yet.
The same is reported in the journal, Nature, which requested a comment from the FCC but didn't receive a reply. The Hackaday article contains this line: "FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected the request, stating that there was an “absence of any technical basis for the objection.” But the Washington Post really zeroes in on the FCC, reporting unresponsiveness to the NOAA, NASA, and even the House Appropriations Committee. All they're asking for is some time to study the situation, but the FCC won't delay spectrum auctions or even concede that there could be an issue.
Whether people want to believe it or not, 5G is being deployed as both a biological and psychological weapon.
Millimetre waves and their effects are well studied and utilised by military in their active denial crowd control systems.
Wifi is also dangerous, why would they have chosen 2.4Ghz when this is the frequency absorption spectrum of H2O. The same frequency microwave ovens use to most effectively heat food.
Similarly, the frequency absorption spectrum of oxygen is mm wave 60Ghz, 5G is likely to use this spectrum at some point.
Next generation wifi (WiGig) has its default frequency based on the oxygen molecules absorption point.
This means they are messing with the fundamental elements of biological life.
Ethernet cables do not have these same flaws.
The surveillance and control aspect of this iot 5G network ecosystem is going to have chilling effects on freedom, liberty and sovereignty.
Social credit anyone?
For microwave ovens / water: You have cause and effect reversed. You believe water has an absorption peak at 2.4GHz because microwave ovens use it, not the other way around. In reality, microwave ovens use 2.4GHz because it's legally available (ISM band) and water has a wide absorption spectrum in GHz area (the exact peak shifts wildly with temperature[1]. 2.4GHz is _far_ from optimal). Microwave ovens also contain kilowatt output in a small chamber using RF reflective walls (necessary for the standing waves to develop). Contrast this with the inverse square law for cell towers.
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.
I remember they said a lot of this when 4G was coming out. If it's anything like that we got nothing to worry about. Add some $1200 phones and slightly faster speeds when you're in the middle of the city and you've pretty much summarized it.
At least we won't have to worry so much about the Great AI Induced Job Loss that's coming: "One estimate projects that 5G will pump twelve trillion dollars into the global economy by 2035, and add twenty-two million new jobs in the United States alone."
The implications of 5G are huge, and it will definitely be a huge step forward in daily technological use. Frankly, I'm excited. 100x faster than 4g? That's insane.
75 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 63.2 ms ] threadDNA 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. 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.
-Prof. Girish Kumar, Professor at Electrical Engineering Department at IIT Bombay
> The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...
It's not impossible, but the phone would have to be quite inefficient to have any measurable effect. Laptops are probably a bigger problem if you keep them in your lap regularly, since in that scenario they do operate at full power close to your scrotum.
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.
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.
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...
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_...