Power lines, 5G... bad for wildlife?  Your thoughts? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 06:55:12 pm
content: According to an article inThe Telegraph, power lines and 5G isn't wildlife friendly....Article: "Electromagnetic radiation from power lines and phone masts poses 'credible' threat to wildlife, report finds" May 18, 2018"Electromagnetic radiation from power lines, wi-fi, phone masts and broadcast transmitters poses a ‘credible’ threat to wildlife, a new report suggests, as environmentalists warned the 5G roll out could cause greater harm."...Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife said: "We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, ... ...There is a credible risk that 5G could impact significantly on wildlife, and that placing transmitters on LED street lamps, which attract nocturnal insects such as moths increases exposure and thereby risk... ...Therefore we call for all 5G pilots to include detailed studies of their influence and impacts on wildlife, and for the results of those studies to be made public?"Quotes from:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/17/electromagnetic-radiation-power-lines-phone-masts-poses-credible/(RL -my injectionhere as possible points of discussion: Is this "bad for wildlife" for real, or merely a call for more money for career long research and studies for some? While at the same time, I personally would not like to live within 50m or so from a power line - fallen line during storm and other unforeseen failures, after all, a lot of energy is available for bad stuff if some failure occurs ...)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 07:01:57 pm
content: Personally it just sounds like more scare tactics from ignorant people. The same sort who freak out about smart power meters supposedly due to concerns about the RF emitted, yet seem to have no trouble yakking away on a mobile phone pressed up against their head for hours a day. I think if there were a credible risk of modest RF/EM exposure people and animals would be dropping dead at much greater rates.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 07:52:51 pm
content: I didn't think LED street lamps would normally have wireless transmitters on them? Normally they are placed on the highest building in that area, on their own mast.Sounds like a valid concern if people were planning on placing transmitters directly beside LED lights. But then, the impact from the LED light itself is probably just as significant or more.http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/forum_discussion?p_p_id=forumdiscussions_WAR_EklipseSBportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_forumdiscussions_WAR_EklipseSBportlet_mvcPath=%2Fhtml%2Fforumdiscussions%2Fview_subject.jsp&_forumdiscussions_WAR_EklipseSBportlet_subjectId=6

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 08:04:32 pm
content: I could MAYBE see 5G but not power lines. If power lines were transmitting enough RF to be dangerous it means they would be extremely lossy. 5G is designed to transmit RF, but not power lines. Even so I would hope that there have been enough studies to ensure 5G is safe before deploying it.

author: Gregg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 08:13:07 pm
content: It is the age old argument, “if you can’t prove it isn’t so, it must be so.”This argument has become more rampant with ease of intercommunications and the overall need for instant gratification of jumping on some band wagon rather than employing actual critical thinking. Just look at the spread of flat earth fanatics for example.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 08:21:05 pm
content: Total bullshit, we've discussed this several times. They might be harmful to the environment all right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with radiation. The real problem the goverments won't confess to is the herbicides they spray around the bottom of the towers (and other related crap like that). They're just using scaremongering as a coverup to throw blame at the first random thing they can think of.Buglife company, insect conservation?hold on while I replace the fuse in my bullshit meter. There's definately some backseat bribery or shear stupidity going on here. If they're touting EM radiation hurts insects, ask them when was the last time they tried to cook some ants or spiders that crawled into the microwave? That's right, it doesn't work!Most insects are too small for even the kilowatt or more of radiation in an oven to affect them, let alone the few watts of a transmitter. One does not need to look further than Youtube to see insects surviving in microwaves! What "credible risk"?(Note: large insects might die in a microwave, but that's still a lot of power)They're either covering up for the environmental damage caused by construction and maintance of these devices, or they know little about science and should not be in charge of a conservation company. They make conservation look bad!QuoteYeah right...that's what the companies made you say.Meanwhile the real research is being done on how not to cause...AHEM

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 10:18:27 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on May 18, 2018, 08:21:05 pmActually, my 1000 watt microwave works rather well in killing insects within seconds!Moths, spiders, flies, and yes, ant too. Usually, I catch them using those flip top sandwich bag. They used to be able to get out of the bag and creep back out of the garbage can ...... until I added a step - 10 seconds on high and that spider is staying in the bag till the Sun goes red-giant.Not to be gruesome, for some reason, some spider will pop - you can actually hear it when that spider is no more.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2018, 11:18:19 pm
content: Electromagnetic radiation is indeed harmful it creates ie. skin cancer in high radiation levels.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2018, 12:49:17 am
content: I think you're confusing the broad topic of electromagnetic radiation with the much more specific category of ionizing radiation.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2018, 01:00:04 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 18, 2018, 10:18:27 pmMost microwave ovens won't kill insects under a certain size due to the wavelength, they literally just walk in between the waves. If you're putting them in bags, its the bags and the air inside that's heating up (also trapping them on the standing waves so they eventually heat). Otherwise your microwave must have a hell of a lot of harmonics or something.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2018, 11:23:00 am
content: We’re at far greater risk from Trump, Putin, Kim and Xi than we are from low level localised radiation.Worry about your children.The microwave and phone will be gone by the time they grow up!If the four horsemen of the apocalypse (above) succeed, so will your children.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2018, 11:25:15 am
content: Quote from: james_s on May 19, 2018, 12:49:17 amUVA/UVB

author: PrecisionAnalytic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2018, 12:39:55 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on May 19, 2018, 01:00:04 amI'm thinking outside the hacked microwave and more the consumer or commercial grade systems hacked phase synchronization with interferometry and/or beamforming using advanced applications that most don't have if not satellite based entirely using other frequencies and tracking.I'm talking not just spy gadgets... I'm talking lethal force prosecution devices that are not disclosed well or accurately if disclosed at all more like plasma rail guns, masers, laser and related ES/TS EW RFI/EMI weapons stuff that is sort of disclosed.I want to add also there is the 60GHz range that along with any of the other ranges can have the potential for combination bands that can be phased synchronized with beamforming and potentially pencilbeam or other forms that are used for a variety of applications in the Defense Industry as noted below.Some interesting disclosures in disclaimers from the 10K filings of most of the major players in the Telecom industry:Corporate Company Investor Warnings In Annual Reports 10k Filings Cell Phone Radiation RisksIssues to consider with the 60Ghz combinations and beamforming coupled with the 5G frequencies approved... even though noted as safe when the beam isn't pointed at you or "typically" not penetrating walls:WiGig WikipediaBeamforming WikipediaOther EEVblog reference discussion:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/_scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g_/?all

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2018, 01:09:01 am
content: Beams do not automattically mean danger. There are lasers weak enough to shine in your eye all day with no damage, and this is no different. It's not just the frequency, it's the power. Communication beams are no where near as strong as weapon beams.

author: PrecisionAnalytic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2018, 05:19:16 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on May 22, 2018, 01:09:01 amYou're thinking coagulation, cauterization and ablation. You're not considering other ionizing effects that can occur outside the state of plasma, gas or vapor.Think gases, vapors, liquids and solids effects using lower energies where a plasma can occur that is ionizing though you don't visualize.Even the Trestle system (ATLAS-1) plasma was invisible which was on a far greater power scale. Think what is invisible at the microscopic scale that can cause mutations, teratogenic, carcinogenic and other multigenic effects. Not only changes in metabolism or human body resonance frequencies for human body functions from sympathetic resonance by static, noise, interference and jamming from all the radio frequency interference and electromagnetic interference.The Cuban Embassy U.S. Diplomats Sound related assaults are another issue of concern that is of the silent sound or V2K issue.

author: PrecisionAnalytic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2018, 06:50:31 am
content: I'll post here also:Also, think how much energy or power the human body takes to function and the lack of clarity that this paper demonstrates in regards to outside the frequency ranges demonstrated:http://www.measurement.sk/2005/S2/Lipkova.pdfWhere is the data on this other range of human body resonance frequency either emission, reflection, absorption or transmission from DC to Cosmic Radiation. The info is rather hit and miss... pun intended.

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 23, 2018, 09:18:53 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 18, 2018, 06:55:12 pmThere we go again...5G frequencies: formerly used for television broadcasts with powers in the several KWs. Now, watts?Power lines are a threat to some wildlife. Birds die because they collide with them and sometimes they can electrocute depending on how do they collide. But that's nothing new.It was even suggested by some "conspiranoids" that cell phone radiation scares birds. Good attempt, but in Spain stork nests are a very serious problem both for antenna towers and power lines.Radiation hardened storks, anyone?

author: Harb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2018, 09:23:16 am
content: I haven't seen any piles of dead koalas under any TXers yet.....none of them even glow in the dark.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2018, 04:49:11 pm
content: Quote from: PrecisionAnalytic on May 23, 2018, 05:19:16 amNo, it's called non-ionizing for a reason. It cannot knock electrons out of orbit and therefore cannot mutate DNA.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6492114

author: PrecisionAnalytic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2019, 07:10:09 am
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on May 23, 2018, 04:49:11 pmDid you even read the paper you referenced?The paper demonstrated potential issues and concern for further study also.We're talking capabilities... not typical specified operations with no classified unlawful health care or paramilitant or military or intelligence operations since now days intelligence operators are also trained in some situations to perform clandestine warfare operations. Even the DEA and CIA operations as well as Defense Contractors can perform out of lawful bounds poisoning operations en mass.You think there isn't the potential to cause injury, maiming, murdering and unreasonable serial killing with the electromagnetic spectrum using modified COTS systems?Non-ionizing radiation can cause the maiming effects I already noted not only in the "thermal range" due to what is now demonstrated as cavitation... though technically that is a thermal effect or technically I think causes a thermal effect from the pressure change whether vibrational or rotational energy excitation of the sympathetic resonance functional groups. I'd guess the electronic/nuclear excitation when the molecules functional groups are energized at the sympathetic resonance(s) can also cause cavitation in certain media.Plus high energy non-ionizing radiation can cause breakdown into plasma which is ionizing in pin point accuracy like RF cautery tools or RF burns or with lower energy non-gas phase ionization like in liquids to cause ions to flow in undesirable ways and initiate chemical reactions that effect hormones, neurotransmitters and nervous system functions. Where's the research in that what I just mentioned which is obvious if you comprehend physical chemistry and/or physics?I did research work demonstrating like others in chemistry who did work with microwave catalyzed reactions that different products are formed than with the same classical reaction without microwave heating. Disclosing the work is dangerous alone. So reactions with certain catalysts that aren't "ionizing radiation" can't exist eh?http://dewdefenseprojects.blogspot.com/https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Make-a-Directed-Energy-Weapon-Detection-Sys/﻿

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2019, 09:50:50 pm
content: Somewhere I have a list of how professional sock puppets destroy intelligent online conversations here in the US.One of a long list of what they do is post arguments known to be sketchy or pseudoscience to make legitimate forums or posts appear to be less credible.Whats happened here in the US is basically, the problem of deep pocketed industries hiring people, (which is easy because we have lots of unemployed people here with kids they need to feed) to drown out opposition. The "throw money at it" approach. And it works.Also, I was told by a friend who used to be part of this world that they create fake people in large numbers who make efforts to 'smell right" and then those people pretend to be doing whatever it is that is against the body of people they want to convinces best interests, to make it appear to be a better course of action than it actually is. Because of the herd instinct.We would hope however that whenever something REALLY important was on the line that we all would speak out and not let that happen. But it isn't.--------So, the other day I found a long list of interesting references to the 5G rollout and various aspects of the technology and one thing stands out to me. The scale thats being contemplated is not at all comparable to existing systems. Its much more ambitious and really in a class by itself.(basically very very short distances between base stations, power levels (it seems several orders of magnitude higher than the current system) , bandwidth (very wide bandwidths) and diversity of frequencies (600 MHz up to over 70 GHz here in the US - and it seems the signals will contain multiple kinds of signals all at the same time)So I have a question to the people who are making the "if a little bit of RF is okay - what we have now- then a lot moremustbe okay too".. Thats not logical thinking. How can you say that? Have you done any reading on this?This is a situation where I suspect that is a very irresponsible jump in logic to make.Also, for your information, RF of different kinds does create both measurable biochemical changes that are known to make the difference between free radical quenching (no damage), apoptosis (programmed cell death) and carcinogenesis.AND signs of DNA damage. (DNA repair adducts) They can all be measured at environmentally relevant levels present today. Those are the levels research is typically done at. So it will be relevant.So, there is a problem with the blanket statements being made, they are not well grounded in fact.Also, it seems this is being done in order to create a network thats going to support an absolutely mind numbing amount of bandwidth between devices. It seems the intent is that this bandwith is mostly expected to be used for machine to machine communications. Why? Are these machines intended to be totally tied to manufacturers? (Heres one of my worries- Its not wise to sell a product that insnt a product like a car or phone, its a thinly disguised cash machine).That makes me worry. Currently when one buys a product, one usually gets a product that has mostly self contained functionality, such as a car.One doesnt buy a product or shouldnt simply to buy a set of buttons that is a cash machine for services which are actually produced and computed elsewhere.Like I was really pissed when a phone I bought came with a "GPS" that didnt work as a GPS at all. get a location fix when I was out in the woods, Nope.Why? It required network connectivity to work.. At all, (plus a data plan) (And this was a phone that was clearly being marketed to hikers!)Now I know for a fact that no GPS chips I was aware of did not have the ability to give you a fix from GPS data available from satellites. So it must have been deliberately disabled.There are only a few possible reasons why 5G 'needs' this much bandwidth and power, and they are all bad in various ways. None of them is good for the consumer and some of them are scary, so much so that I don't want to go down that path and discuss them.Also, a lot of bullying seems to be going on in the regulatory community when the facts really are not at all clear - as some people are trying to say they are. The health issues are not clear, certainly not given the massive increases in power that are being contemplated. Is it even possible for objective research to be done under the cloud of pressure it seems may exist now. I don't know.This is an electronics forum but its also an engineering forum. To me that means use of the scientific process to investigate deeply, and do things in the best way possible.When the precautionary principle seems appropriate its good to apply it.Fine tuning and optimization of ideas to make them work is what engineering is all about.An engineer should have a skeptical mind and also should investigate all potential gotchas of an idea, thats their job. Resisting groupthink.being the best engineer you can be means investigating all potential problems.Right?This is a good read on groupthink and how destructive it can be is illustrated by the Challenger disaster. I suspect that may apply with 5G also. In any case, caution is an especially good thing to practice when its impossible to reverse a mistake as it is now with anything involving corporations that operate across borders.https://williamwolff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/griffin-groupthink-challenger.pdf

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2019, 10:17:47 pm
content: I just wanted to chime in that the (highly directional, much much much lower power) 60 GHz wifi technology seems to be totally unrelated to 5G, and as long as they resist the temptation to start putting it into every object they can, (which might be too much to ask)maybe a fairly positive thing.Quote from: PrecisionAnalytic link=topic=112937.msg1557349#msg1557349<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Gigabit_Alliance">WiGig Wikipedia</a>[/quote

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2019, 05:42:52 am
content: QuoteFucking hell...You just ranted about how you can take non-ionizing radiation and boost it to the point it ionizes. Now it's no longer non-ionizing radiation now is it.Of course microwaves can ionize, just put foil in a microwave oven. It's the POWER LEVEL that makes the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing for RF.QuoteThe health issues are not clear because modern woo-woo science is shit so everything in California causes cancer.So I guess Roundup now causes lymphoma, talcum powder causes feminine cancers, exc. Was this RF "danger" based on mouse models by any chance?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2019, 11:03:12 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 07, 2019, 09:50:50 pmThat's actually incorrect. We have 5G here in Australia and they run at more or less the same power levels as existing 4G/LTE towers.Quote

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2019, 11:25:26 am
content: Quote from: cdev on January 07, 2019, 09:50:50 pmVery true.It is worth comparing those correct statements with statements in your many posts on 5G, for example...QuoteNumbers, not adjectives please. Adjectives are "sketchy arguments", as in your comment above!I've asked you to supply numbers quite a few times in different threads. So far your responses have been more adjectives, and with zero numbers.For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think you are a professional sockpuppetQuoteLet's mutate that question a little...So I have a question to the people who are making the "if a lot of RF is dangerous then much lessmustbe dangerous too".. Thats not logical thinking. How can you say that? Have you done any reading on this?Or s/RF/water/ or s/RF/oxygen/, to make the point even clearer.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2019, 08:23:17 pm
content: If you're talking about me, your characterization of what you think is my position is wrong.Also, read the literature on 5G, and RF and health generally. For example, the NTP findings linked below. For that reason, I think that making hasty decisions would not be wise..I got my info on things like base station density straight from the 5G literature.I just don't think its wise, until we know much more especially given that we know that so very many other toxicants also impact the same endpoints in the body and there is pressure to relax regulation in them too.Even as we're discovering important problems like the problem with Fyn and c-Cbl I pointed out earlier.According to NTP, now I realize that RF has been declared a human carcinogen. That is far from the benign picture advocates paint, isnt it?Who knows what the outcome should be? I know I don't.Also, do you see why I am arguing that a great many pro-oxidant toxicants are additive? That is one of the reasons, its been shown that birth defects occur in a dose related manner at environmentally relevant numbers, when an unborn child is exposed to very low levels of pro-oxidant environmental factors at that stage of development. One of a number of measurable parameters we see from strong nearby RF exposure is increases in reactive oxygen species and increases in DNA repair adducts can also be measured.This is new. Another data point.Still have not read it fully.NTP = the US National Toxicology Program.-------Format: AbstractInt J Oncol. 2019 Jan;54(1):111-127. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4606. Epub 2018 Oct 24.Comments on the US National Toxicology Program technical reports on toxicology and carcinogenesis study in rats exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 900 MHz and in mice exposed to whole-body radiofrequency radiation at 1,900 MHz.Hardell L1, Carlberg M1.Author informationAbstractDuring the use of handheld mobile and cordless phones, the brain is the main target of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. An increased risk of developing glioma and acoustic neuroma has been found in human epidemiological studies. Primarily based on these findings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) classified in May, 2011 RF radiation at the frequency range of 30 kHz‑300 GHz as a 'possible' human carcinogen, Group 2B. A carcinogenic potential for RF radiation in animal studies was already published in 1982. This has been confirmed over the years, more recently in the Ramazzini Institute rat study. An increased incidence of glioma in the brain and malignant schwannoma in the heart was found in the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on rats and mice. The NTP final report is to be published; however, the extended reports are published on the internet for evaluation and are reviewed herein in more detail in relation to human epidemiological studies. Thus, the main aim of this study was to compare earlier human epidemiological studies with NTP findings, including a short review of animal studies. We conclude that there is clear evidence that RF radiation is a human carcinogen, causing glioma and vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma). There is some evidence of an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer, and clear evidence that RF radiation is a multi‑site carcinogen. Based on the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, RF radiation should be classified as carcinogenic to humans, Group 1.PMID:30365129PMCID:PMC6254861DOI:10.3892/ijo.2018.4606------https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254861/They appear to be commenting on this draft.https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf

author: PrecisionAnalytic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 05:54:28 pm
content: Latest and greatest food for thought on the real potential dangers:http://dewdefenseprojects.blogspot.com/2019/03/neuroscientist-dr-james-giordano-on.html