5G - health hazard?

AlekSmart · 02-04-2019 06:21PM

Anteayer wrote: »

If anything 5G which will be occupying lower frequencies than 3G is arguably 'safer' in the sense that it's using broadcasting frequencies that have been used for UHF television for decades.

The only thing that worries me about 5G is that it might bring a plethora of badly configured, insecure, internet of things (IoT) devices in a much more ubiquitous way than we have today if companies start selling online toasters and so on all hanging off 5G.

5G has the potential to massively reduce lack of connectivity issues in rural area though. It would be a shame to see people getting paranoid about a technology that has no health risks whatsoever and could have major economic benefits in a very widespread way.

Also why the hell would you be chopping down trees to put in a small radio transmitter? That argument doesn't even make sense. Most of the 5G infrastructure will go on existing towers and high sides and smaller transmission sites can be hidden away very easily.

It's not very obtrusive technology.

It's ironic that the internet, which entirely depends on these kinds of technologies and is born of tech has been the single biggest platform for spreading anti science conspiracy theory nonsense.

Back in 2016,then Seanad Candidate,Peter Casey made some pertinent points regarding Broadband availability generally..

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/peter-casey-rural-broadband-2-2690616-Mar2016/

3 years on,and a high-profile presidential campaign later,his points remain valid.

Looking at the Total Shambles in which the Rural Broadband Rollout programme now lies,it is VERY apparent that Peter Casey's preference for a large scale expansion of 5G based connectivity is spot-on the money.

Sadly,his voice will remain in the wilderness,as successive Irish Governments strive to maintain their powers of wasting VAST amounts of money on projects which we have little idea of how to implement...Trams Metro's...Hospitals....Broadband Schemes...Housing....Swimming Pools...you name it,we have made a bollickks of it.

There is a cabal of Administrators deeply embedded into Irelands Political System,whose motto will always be Fán go bhfeicimid...and if we Fán long enough,it'll be time for the oul Pinsin :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato · 02-04-2019 06:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Scientific consensus is that not enough is known about adverse health effects of long-term low-level (ie 'safe' level) RF exposure.

We've been using man-made RF energy for well over 100 years now, and broadcasting at power levels thousands of times higher than what is proposed for 5G.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-04-2019 06:22PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Stuff like that makes me angry.

Meh. Priests make completely unsubstantiated claims all the time and get paid for it.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-04-2019 06:29PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We've been using man-made RF energy for well over 100 years now, and broadcasting at power levels thousands of times higher than what is proposed for 5G.

They burned a whole bog to power the transmitters to get across the Atlantic.

https://www.connemara.net/the-marconi-station/

The station was not officially opened until 17th October 1907, when commercial signalling commenced between Clifden and Glace Bay. It was a sight to behold, with the huge condenser house building, the power house with its 6 boilers, and the massive aerial system consisting of 8 wooden masts, each 210 feet high extending eastwards over the hill for a distance of 0.5 kilometres. The aerials gave off sparks which could be heard in the distance, indicative of the huge power and voltages involved (150KW at 15,000 volts).

Anteayer · 02-04-2019 07:42PM

The rural broadband rollout is a diaster because it's economically not viable without massive state funding. Where Eir has rolled out FTTH (fibre to home) in rural areas where income levels are low the uptake has been very low and the cost per customer is astronomical.

These projects can't be done at a loss by any commercial company as they'll never recoup the investment.

5G isn't all that much cheaper btw as you still have to bring fibre to masts and each mast can only serve a particular area which may be very low density and you get into all sorts of line of sight issues in mountainous areas.

In the big scheme of things using FTTH makes sense, but it's going to cost as much as the original phone network cost to build as you've got to replace cooper with fiber.

As a long term strategy fibre infrastructure is future proof as you can reuse the fibres to achieve much higher speeds than any radio technology can ever achieve.

The rural rollout needs to be a mix of both. Fibre where possible and radio links where it's not.

5G and FTTH are actually complementary technologies and where Eir and Vodafone (with their 50% ownership of Siro) are future proofing is by basically merging their fixed and mobile platforms into a single , flexible access network that leverages the fixed line fibre networks with 5G.

We are headed towards a system that will not distinguish mobile and fixed stuff as much as it is now.

Boom_Bap · 02-04-2019 08:10PM

4068ac1elhodqr · 02-04-2019 08:18PM

Read somewhere there is a 'crowd control/dispersion' device in development, that uses directed M'Waves.

Whilst it cannot damage any internal organs, such is the low penetration (mm's) of these waves,
it can give the sensation of 'boiling' by quickly heating the largest organ (skin) and thus all near surface level blood vessels.

Thankfully it won't cause fatal injury, but just the thought of it really gets my blood boiling!

rom · 02-04-2019 08:37PM

main-qimg-4be9dbfa57ed499c1dbbee629a1599f2

Anteayer · 02-04-2019 08:47PM

skallywag wrote: »

Yes, that one. There was another cluster of transmitting equipment (different styles of dishes) in a building right beside it as well, for years before it went up. I think they may have been related to Telecom Eireann at the time, though I am not sure.

I'd say that may have actually all been MMDS related equipment. They would have likely used that site as their "head end" back in the day. Any microwave dishes would have been for linking it point-to-point with transmitters all over the county. They likely sourced the programming form a link to their building in Geroge's Quay and from the same sources as their cable TV feeds in the city. The original service would have been entirely analogue too - it just took a subset of channels from the city system and used the same awful US-style cable TV descramblers from Jerrold. Those things were used by some of the old analogue UK cable networks too. Horrible piece of kit that always looked like the 1970s had fallen through a time warp and they were still in use well into the early 2000s!

Capt'n Midnight · 02-04-2019 09:09PM

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Read somewhere there is a 'crowd control/dispersion' device in development, that uses directed M'Waves.

Not under development. It was deployed in 2010. But it uses 2 MW which is about a million times more than phones do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

Anteayer · 02-04-2019 09:15PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not under development. It was deployed in 2010. But it uses 2 MW which is about a million times more than phones do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

2 Megawatts of any radiated energy, including light would do significant damage. I mean if you hooked up that kind of power to a giant bank of intense LEDs or, worse to a source of infrared energy (which is the kind of energy emitted from your fireplace) you could cause horrible damage.

The frequency of the non-ionising radiation is not doing the damage there, it's the vast amount of power being radiated into the air.

It's like saying that a fire is dangerous and comparing thousands of flame throwers to a birthday candle. One is pretty, the other will vaporise you.

Those organisations have been toying with the idea of energy weapons for decades and they usually turn out not very practical and turn out to be highly ineffective or dangerous.

4068ac1elhodqr · 02-04-2019 09:30PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not under development. It was deployed in 2010. But it uses 2 MW which is about a million times more than phones do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

Guess 5G cell towers won't be near as much as this, still maybe 2KW (with headroom) and within line-of-sight to supply all the nearby 4KTV & IOT.

Point was, mm & sub-mm (nm) are both biologicaly active, even if it is just surface level (sweat glands).

As the other poster mentioned, yes a candle won't do much damage, but folks that cook pizza fulltime, wear cheap sunglasses, weld or regularly sit very close to cosy pub fires, may all be at some risk of cornea damage.

Best plan would be to check in on S.Korea in a couple of years and see how they're getting on with their streetlights.

Pherekydes · 02-04-2019 10:27PM

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Read somewhere there is a 'crowd control/dispersion' device in development, that uses directed M'Waves.

Thankfully it won't cause fatal injury, but just the thought of it really gets my blood boiling!

No need to actually use it, then. Just tell the crowd, and their blood will start to boil.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-04-2019 11:40PM

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Point was, mm & sub-mm (nm) are both biologicaly active, even if it is just surface level (sweat glands)

Only in the sense that 2 MegaWatts of any radiation is going to heat you up.

That much Heat or Light wouldn't be pleasant.

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 12:23AM

Bear in mind that the power output of a mobile phone mast is much, much smaller than its input.

Because 5G uses very complicated gear in the transmission sites, there's actually a lot of computational power involved.

You could be putting in 300W or more and getting out 10 to 50W of radiated power

4068ac1elhodqr · 03-04-2019 12:33AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Only in the sense that 2 MegaWatts of any radiation is going to heat you up.

That much Heat or Light wouldn't be pleasant.

Indeed, but what about the cumulative slower-cook effect (24/7) of 2 KiloWatts within 200feet of any urban space (every lamp pole, bus stop, and public building) as may be planned for G5.

Sure it won't give anyone an instant green-glow, but may excite molecules beyond what they've been used to for the last 10,000yrs or so via the low Schumann resonance 7.83 Hz (fundamental).

As an aside, knew a chap that used to carry two mobiles in his front pockets, today he only carries one, but he only a signluar Gohonaes also. Maybe these near surface, temperature sensitve organs (ideally 37oc,-2) items got too '2.4ghz excited' over the years of near exposure and gave up.

It may well be safe, but 90% of (market leader) S.Korea residents, simply won't be able to avoid it by 2026. Will a 'digital-smog-free existance', ever become a human right?

MonkieSocks · 03-04-2019 12:36AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Spice bags will kill you faster than 5G

Aren't they having a re-union tour shortly

paleoperson · 03-04-2019 12:40AM

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Indeed, but what about the cumulative slower-cook effect (24/7) of 2 KiloWatts within 200feet of any urban space (every lamp pole, bus stop, and public building) as may be planned for G5.

Sure it won't give anyone an instant green-glow, but may excite molecules beyond what they've been used to for the last 10,000yrs or so via the low Schumann resonance 7.83 Hz (fundamental).

As an aside, knew a chap that used to carry two mobiles in his front pockets, today he only carries one, but he only a signluar Gohonaes also. Maybe these near surface, temperature sensitve organs (ideally 37oc,-2) items got too '2.4ghz excited' over the years of near exposure and gave up.

It may well be safe, but 90% of (market leader) S.Korea residents, simply won't be able to avoid it by 2026. Will a 'digital-smog-free existance', ever become a human right?

The people here don't have any understanding of or interest in science, especially people such as that mod claiming to be a member of IET and yet doesn't understand the basics of electromagnetic waves. They are only interested in pretending other people are stupid and laughing at them.

Guffy · 03-04-2019 12:41AM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I know nothing about it, other than the fact that the people getting their knickers in a twist over it are the very same people who get their knickers in a twist about chemtrails, fluoride and vaccinations. That alone has convinced me not to worry about it.

But... But chemtrails!!!

TheRepentent · 03-04-2019 12:43AM

paleoperson wrote: »

The people here don't have any understanding of or interest in science, especially people such as that mod claiming to be a member of IET and yet doesn't understand the basics of electromagnetic waves. They are only interested in pretending other people are stupid and laughing at them.

You got caught talking sh1te :rolleyes: And yes people are laughing at you.

4068ac1elhodqr · 03-04-2019 12:46AM

Anteayer wrote: »

Bear in mind that the power output of a mobile phone mast is much, much smaller than its input.

Because 5G uses very complicated gear in the transmission sites, there's actually a lot of computational power involved.

You could be putting in 300W or more and getting out 10 to 50W of radiated power

Maybe so, but estimates for mini-cells are still closer to 2000W, with some extra headroom available. Another estimate is the a country the size of Britian will need 400,000 new masts to support it.

Sure the convience of such a technology is great for the trillions of IOT devices. McDonalds is also a great convience, but the orignal RalphMcD character go the sack shortly after joining them, due to sudden obesity.

4068ac1elhodqr · 03-04-2019 12:50AM

paleoperson wrote: »

The people here don't have any understanding of or interest in science, especially people such as that mod claiming to be a member of IET and yet doesn't understand the basics of electromagnetic waves. They are only interested in pretending other people are stupid and laughing at them.

Ah to be fair, your earlier point about X-Rays, being close to Microwaves was a bit 'adventurous'.

Don't think anyone can say it's entirely safe, or not. Best plan would be to check in on Seoul around 2025 and see how many of their cats grow another head, or if rates of human cancer spike.

paleoperson · 03-04-2019 01:01AM

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Ah to be fair, your earlier point about X-Rays, being close to Microwaves was a bit 'adventurous'.

I disagree but I can see where that is coming from. This is what I said:

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

I meant it's more like as in it's towards the x-ray end of the spectrum, most people understand the dangers of x-rays, 5ghz is more like them than 3.6ghz is. I did not mean to imply that it made it more like an x-ray than it was like a microwave. I can understand how that might have been misinterpreted, but it seems to have been willfully misinterpreted and that one phrase got someone to falsely state I stated only "pseudoscience" and falsely state I was "caught with my digital pants down". I realize the name of the game here seems to be to escalate, escalate, escalate with personal attacks and throw whatever you can at someone here but from a mod just in pretence that I was wrong is beneath the belt.

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Don't think anyone can say it's entirely safe, or not. Best plan would be to check in on Seoul around 2025 and see how many of their cats grow another head, or if rates of human cancer spike.

Yes, but as is often the case it might be just low enough that they can have plausible deniability. I think we'd need at least until 2040 before it shows anything, by which time it would be too late.

Anteayer · 03-04-2019 01:34AM

I'm not sure where you're getting the wattages.

Input ≠ output.

A Huawei small cell for lamppost mount for example is 2 to 5 watts output.
A full size tower is between 40W and absolute max 200W which would be unusual.

There's no way you'd be using 2kW per mini cell. It would be nuts even from a power consumption point of view.

If you needed 40,000 cells (as you're saying) at 2kW each operating at say max for 12 of every 24 hours for 365 days per year at 10p per kWh

£35,040,000 - the network would be paying 35m / year on power. That's not remotely accurate as a figure per cell for wattage.

4068ac1elhodqr · 03-04-2019 02:22AM

Anteayer wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting the wattages.

Input ≠ output.

A Huawei small cell for lamppost mount for example is 2 to 5 watts output.
A full size tower is between 40W and absolute max 200W which would be unusual.

There's no way you'd be using 2kW per mini cell. It would be nuts even from a power consumption point of view.

If you needed 40,000 cells (as you're saying) at 2kW each operating at say max for 12 of every 24 hours for 365 days per year at 10p per kWh

£35,040,000 - the network would be paying 35m / year on power. That's not remotely accurate as a figure per cell for wattage.

Ah that 2kw that figure seen earlier might have been for 4G, still some high demand urban 5G mini towers in phased arrays may contain higher densities of transmitters, say 4 transmitters per unit with e.g. 5G Samsung NAU100 peaks of 270w.

They'll save energy by switching to LED lamp posts, if haven't already during the transition.

One correction also is that it would be 400,000 cells, not 40,000, for somewhere the size of Britian. Obvs that includes full rural coverage, which would be unlikely within immediate decades.

However if there is ever a real desire for self-driving cars, that means every significant road will need it by necessity.

Hotblack Desiato · 03-04-2019 02:28AM

paleoperson wrote: »

most people understand the dangers of x-rays, 5ghz is more like them than 3.6ghz is.

Wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You're still wrong.

Hotblack Desiato · 03-04-2019 02:29AM

Kenia Full Camera wrote: »

Ah that 2kw that figure seen earlier might have been for 4G, still some high demand urban 5G mini towers in phased arrays may contain higher densities of transmitters, say 4 transmitters per unit with e.g. 5G Samsung NAU100 peaks of 270w.

They'll save energy by switching to LED lamp posts, if haven't already during the transition.

One correction also is that it would be 400,000 cells, not 40,000, for somewhere the size of Britian. Obvs that includes full rural coverage, which would be unlikely within immediate decades.

However if there is ever a real desire for self-driving cars, that means every significant road will need it by necessity.

When you're found out talking complete crap, an apology would be nice. Just sayin'.

03-04-2019 03:17AM

I don't think I've ever been less excited about a technology. I can stream 1080p on my 4g and my ping is less than 10ms to the ISP. How much faster could it really be when the web servers themselves have limitations on how fast they can serve pages and data..

sk8erboii · 03-04-2019 04:13AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think I've ever been less excited about a technology. I can stream 1080p on my 4g and my ping is less than 10ms to the ISP. How much faster could it really be when the web servers themselves have limitations on how fast they can serve pages and data..

Its not all there yet. 4g is not viable for 4k video. Especially HDR streams where the data is exponentially large. Let alone 8k/120fps game streaming like Google stadia.

Seems technology has left you.

03-04-2019 05:18AM

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its not all there yet. 4g is not viable for 4k video. Especially HDR streams where the data is exponentially large. Let alone 8k/120fps game streaming like Google stadia.

Seems technology has left you.

Technology hasn't left me. I just place little importance on 4k video and my future gaming interests lie in VR which imo, Stadia will never work for.

All I said was I wasn't excited.

5G - health hazard?

Comments