Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

5G - health hazard?

1234689

Comments

  • #152
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,777 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.

    No 4G cells are 2kW either

    What do you think the transmit power would have to be to send return signals from the handset / device at the outer limits of coverage of a cell that size? You're talking about battery powered devices by and large here


  • #153
    Sephiroth_dude
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 81,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sephiroth_dude



    Mod

    paleoperson take a week off for ignoring mod instruction


  • #154
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    When you're found out talking complete crap, an apology would be nice. Just sayin'.

    You dropped a zero from the total amount of mini towers to cover somewhere like britian with full 5G coverage.

    It's 400,000 (likely every lamp post, public building and road) but why did you mysteriously re-quoted it as only 40,000?

    Just saying this, as hopefully you're not in charge of anyones payroll dept when the zeros 'go-a-missing'.


  • #155
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,955 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Kenia Full Camera wrote: »
    You dropped a zero from the total amount of mini towers to cover somewhere like britian with full 5G coverage.

    It's 400,000 (likely every lamp post, public building and road) but why did you mysteriously re-quoted it as only 40,000?

    Just saying this, as hopefully you're not in charge of anyones payroll dept when the zeros 'go-a-missing'.

    Exaggerate much? :rolleyes:


  • #156
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Exaggerate much? :rolleyes:

    That's the estimate for 98 or 99% full coverage similar to what many networks advertise and promise for (standard non-G4/5) mobile plans today.

    Ah sure what's a 'deliberately removed' zero here and there?
    Ah sure, does not matter if your self-driving car switches itself off down some country road in 2030 while your off focus.

    As mentioned covering ‎209,331 km2 (80,823 sq mi) with 5G won't be possible for some time yet, perhaps decades away, point is just 40,000 won't cut the mustard.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,955 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Kenia Full Camera wrote: »
    [b[That's the estimate for 98 or 99% full coverage[/b] similar to what many networks advertise and promise for (standard non-G4/5) mobile plans today.

    Ah sure what's a 'deliberately removed' zero here and there?
    Ah sure, does not matter if your self-driving car switches itself off down some country road in 2030 while your off focus.

    As mentioned covering ‎209,331 km2 (80,823 sq mi) with 5G won't be possible for some time yet, perhaps decades away, point is just 40,000 won't cut the mustard.

    You said every street lamp right? 400,000 isnt even 1/4 of the streetlamps in the UK, and thats befire we get into your claim of public buildings as well.


    http://www.htma.info/industry-topics/street-lighting.html

    Today there are over 7.5 million streetlights in the UK, 


  • #158
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You said every street lamp right? 400,000 isnt even 1/4 of the streetlamps in the UK, and thats befire we get into your claim of public buildings as well.

    Fair enough, they'll skip a few street lights that are in close proximity.

    But does anyone supporting the cliam of just 40,000 G5 masts stand up any better?

    Nope, it does not, indeed it's slightly laughable unless you intend to cover just 10% of landmass. In which case, many won't sign up for it, even with a free shinny phone thrown into any future 36mth contract.


  • #159
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,955 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Kenia Full Camera wrote: »
    Fair enough, they'll skip a few street lights that are in close proximity.

    But does anyone supporting the cliam of just 40,000 G5 masts stand up any better?

    Nope, it does not, indeed it's slightly laughable unless you intend to cover just 10% of landmass. In which case, many won't sign up for it, even with a free shinny phone thrown into any future 36mth contract.

    No one is supporting this "claim " you have just jumped on it when maybe, just maybe it was a typo?

    40,000
    400,000

    See how easy that could happen?


  • #160
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    No one is supporting this "claim " you have just jumped on it when maybe, just maybe it was a typo?

    40,000
    400,000

    See how easy that could happen?

    The original poster made no effort to correct, nor admit their clear mistake.

    Given the title of the thread, suggesting there would be 360,000 less G5 towers in a small country such as britian to run G5, it's 'fairly significant' if ever there is any evidence in the future of potential health risks to the public.


  • #161
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,500 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Kenia Full Camera wrote: »
    You dropped a zero from the total amount of mini towers to cover somewhere like britian with full 5G coverage.

    It's 400,000 (likely every lamp post, public building and road) but why did you mysteriously re-quoted it as only 40,000?

    Just saying this, as hopefully you're not in charge of anyones payroll dept when the zeros 'go-a-missing'.

    This is the only post where I quoted you

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109838786&postcount=148

    The quote reads:
    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.

    I didn't post anything about 40,000 (or 400,000), in a post from you or from anyone else.

    How embarrassing for you.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Advertisement
  • #162
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

    I didn't post anything about 40,000 (or 400,000), in a post from you or from anyone else.

    How embarrassing for you.

    Ok, so mixed you with (it was Anteayer) on the previous page who made the 40,000 claim.
    However you didn't question this figure when I tried to highlight and correct it.

    More recently simply put it down as a typo, that this person (who since hasn't corrected it) had made.
    Could be a typo yes, or could be mis-direction, who knows for sure.

    The point stands that 400,000 mini cell towers for somewhere the size of Britian is 'very significant' if they want full G5 coverage, and if there is any risk to health from them.


  • #163
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,500 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Apology accepted :rolleyes:

    Hope you don't run a payroll yourself, would be rather embarrassing to mix up one person's wages with another's...

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #164
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,955 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Kenia Full Camera wrote: »
    Ok, so mixed you with (it was Anteayer) on the previous page who made the 40,000 claim.
    However you didn't question this figure when I tried to highlight and correct it.

    More recently simply put it down as a typo, that this person (who since hasn't corrected it) had made.
    Could be a typo yes, or could be mis-direction, who knows for sure.

    The point stands that 400,000 mini cell towers for somewhere the size of Britian is 'very significant' if they want full G5 coverage, and if there is any risk to health from them.

    Ah would you stop ffs, previously you were claiming every lamp post (7+ million) and public building would be needing a tower to get coverage. 400,000 spread across the UK really isnt that much.


  • #165
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    This is really reminding me of when there was the paranoia about WiFi signals.


  • #166
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    TV's and monitors that used CRT's used to have lead glass.

    No ever got upset that they were staring at a cathode ray tube for hours.

    The cathode ray's were fine. The X-ray radiation they gave off not so much.


  • #167
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Ah would you stop ffs, previously you were claiming every lamp post (7+ million) and public building would be needing a tower to get coverage. 400,000 spread across the UK really isnt that much.

    The post was claiming that they were "masts" with 2kW power consumption.

    The micro cells they're taking about using are really small and very low power. They're not much more than the scale of a typical domestic WiFi router.

    5G will tend to use a lot of them to achieve higher speeds in dense areas.

    Tiny cells are already commonly used for existing mobile technologies btw.


  • #168
    Impetus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Impetus


    Compare and contrast the 'arrival' of 5G in South Korea

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9IHpcfoRGs

    Within dumb America, it appears that all they can do is play with speedtests, almost cluelesly.

    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04/verizon-5g-goes-live-hits-760mbps-in-a-speed-test/

    I came across this interesting paper on EMF today.

    http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/ICRTEM/ME/Volume-4/IOSRME07.pdf

    I installed an EMF meter app on my mobile phone. It measures EMF and RF radiation. One finds EMF in 'strange places'. eg between the left and right cups of an over-ear headphone. Over 200 micro Tesla. I live in a 20 story apartment building. The dry riser pipe (allegedly for putting out fires) (which goes from -4 basement to +20 penthouse levels has about 180 micro Tesla of EMF in its vicinity. Someone suggested it might be a giant antenna?

    The area is dense with mobile phone masts due to the nine skyscraper apartment blocks beside each other. On the terrace, the RF jumps up. Within the building RF seems to be OK. There was a pico cellphone site in the apartment when I arrived day one. On day one, it ended up in the recycling eJunk can 16 floors below.


    (Almost globally) cancer rates have been increasing over the decades. The main changes in lifestyle have been types of food consumed, more electric gadgets, and the widespread use of chemicals. Not to mention the increase in the kWh of electricity consumed as economies grow.

    I was going to post this item in a mobile phone topic. However they seem to have been all taken over by mobile phone networks, who have editorial control over same. Many threads seem to disappear as a result.


  • #169
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,779 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    I’m wearing a double tin foil hat to be sure. Single foil hat just doesn’t cut it any more with this new fangled gadgetry


  • #170
    Raging_Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭Raging_Ninja


    Impetus wrote: »
    .Cancer rates have been increasing over the decades. The main changes in lifestyle have been types of food consumed, more electric gadgets, and the widespread use of chemicals. Not to mention the increase in the kWh of electricity consumed as economies grow.

    Increasing cancer rates are explained mainly by aging populations (cancer is primarily associated with age, the more old people you have, the more cancer incidents you will see) and better diagnostic techniques.

    Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "chemicals"? Everything is a chemical, so which ones are you talking about.


  • #171
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    It’s worth having a read of this scientific and objective analysis of why cancers rates are increasing

    RF doesn’t feature. It’s mostly down to surviving into your 70s, 80s and 90s, better diagnosis picking cancers up and also lifestyle. Our diets are atrocious and that western highly processed food model has spread with wealth and industrialition.

    https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/02/04/why-are-cancer-rates-increasing/

    But sure logic, facts and science are seen as witchcraft these days and there’s no point in arguing as the conspiracy theories are more engaging and compelling.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,728 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    I'm much more concerned about car exhaust fumes than radio waves. I think when (not in most of our lifetime) that fossil fuel is replaced as an energy source for automotive vehicles the true extent of the damage it has done to everyone's health will be revealed.


  • #173
    astrofool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,548 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    TV's and monitors that used CRT's used to have lead glass.

    No ever got upset that they were staring at a cathode ray tube for hours.

    The cathode ray's were fine. The X-ray radiation they gave off not so much.

    I remember watching a documentary about someone who was "allergic" to technology, however the husband really missed the TV, so she managed not to be allergic to a Black & White radiation king, but couldn't be near a modern colour TV.


  • #174
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    astrofool wrote: »
    I remember watching a documentary about someone who was "allergic" to technology, however the husband really missed the TV, so she managed not to be allergic to a Black & White radiation king, but couldn't be near a modern colour TV.
    Colour used higher voltages up to 38 Kill-O-Volts, so way more energetic x-rays

    Not that humans can discriminate much at that end of the spectrum


  • #175
    Impetus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Impetus


    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    Increasing cancer rates are explained mainly by aging populations (cancer is primarily associated with age, the more old people you have, the more cancer incidents you will see) and better diagnostic techniques.

    Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "chemicals"? Everything is a chemical, so which ones are you talking about.


    Everything is not a 'chemical'. Chemicals are usually a combination of elements. One has naturally grown (ie bio) organisms, most of which have existed for centuries or longer. Many things are made of elements. Some examples of the chemicals I have in mind are weed killers, water pollutants (some of which are elements), food and beverage additives, paints, cleaning preparations, cosmetics, liquid carriers of energy, the products of combustion, and similar are in my view contributing to a lower life expectancy. The list is not exhaustive, and for the avoidance of doubt one might qualify the term for the purpose of my posting to harmful or potentially harmful chemicals.

    By chemicals I do not mean grass, human skin, unpolluted fresh air, a tree or other plant, and similar. Of course one can flood a lawn with fertilizer and weed killer, but I would exclude same from being healthy.


  • #176
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,036 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Impetus wrote: »
    Everything is not a 'chemical'. Chemicals are usually a combination of elements. One has naturally grown (ie bio) organisms, most of which have existed for centuries or longer. Many things are made of elements. Some examples of the chemicals I have in mind are weed killers, water pollutants (some of which are elements), food and beverage additives, paints, cleaning preparations, cosmetics, liquid carriers of energy, the products of combustion, and similar are in my view contributing to a lower life expectancy. The list is not exhaustive, and for the avoidance of doubt one might qualify the term for the purpose of my posting to harmful or potentially harmful chemicals.

    By chemicals I do not mean grass, human skin, unpolluted fresh air, a tree or other plant, and similar. Of course one can flood a lawn with fertilizer and weed killer, but I would exclude same from being healthy.

    EVERYTHING is a combination of elements. EVERYTHING.


  • #177
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    EVERYTHING is a combination of elements. EVERYTHING.
    I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.


  • #178
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Those frequencies have been used all along, put a name on it and someone gets an allergy to it


  • #179
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,880 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Impetus wrote: »
    I came across this interesting paper on EMF today.

    http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/ICRTEM/ME/Volume-4/IOSRME07.pdf
    /QUOTE]

    Seems like it might be a dodgy Indian journal, apparently. http://allaboutfakejournal.blogspot.com/2013/06/is-iosr-journal-is-fake-indian-journal.html

    They'll apparently publish anything, just send the fee. And that paper you quote qualifies as 'they'll publish anything.' It's a series of statements with no backup other than handwaving about EMF, no references, no experiments, nada. Just proof by blatant assertion.


  • #180
    Impetus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Impetus


    The main issue with the 5G air interface is the need for higher radio frequencies to handle the increased data volumes and speeds. When GSM came out first, it largely worked in the 800 Mhz band. Signals in this frequency can travel for 20km or more. The limiting factor on distance was not the radiated power. However the data carrying capacity at 800 Mhz is restricted.

    LTE generally uses frequencies in the 2'000 Mhz range, and this higher frequency limits the range to a few km.

    5G can use even higher frequencies, and will need to use them to achieve the traffic carrying capacity promised by 5G. These frequencies can be up to 60 Ghz. This will imply an extremely short range and a poor ability to penetrate buildings - especially large buildings with lots of steel.

    This leaves a choice of (virtually) a pico cell in each residential unit - and perhaps more in a large unit - eg 500 m2 and above. Or use SIP over fiber in buildings with landline SIP phones, or Wi-Fi to transport the voice/video over the last few hundred metres within a building.

    The closer the proximity the human is to the cellsite, the higher the risk from the radiation.

    I live in a steel reinforced apartment tower which has an LTE cellsite a few hundred metres away. I get between 50 and 200 W on the terrace outside. Within the apartment, with the windows closed the radiation is about 0.2W.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Impetus wrote: »
    ........

    I live in a steel reinforced apartment tower which has an LTE cellsite a few hundred metres away. I get between 50 and 200 W on the terrace outside. Within the apartment, with the windows closed the radiation is about 0.2W.

    What are you measuring it with ?


Advertisement