5G will kill us all? Seriously?? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / rf-microwave

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 05:42:18 pm
content: haha sorry for the click bait titleJust got bumped by YT's recommendation(?!) over to some pretty wicked and disturbing conspiracies about 60Ghz attacking molecular structures, having the potential to suffocate and even kill remotely.... among other nasties being unofficially discussed and broadcast all over that platform. I am a bit shattered(lol), not much by the fud attempt but by the sort of YT content regular folks (and kids) are being exposed too.Seriously though, just want to ask our "real industry experts" (you, Sir) what is the official version. Any views on that subject? Worries? testaments being drafted?!Thanks for sharing guys

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:05:08 pm
content: Many years ago I worked for a WLL carrier with base stations in the 3.5 and 26 (could be also 24 or 28) GHz bands. If the current nonsense would be true we would have been extinct back then.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:06:54 pm
content: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/5g-conspiracies/

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:26:55 pm
content: Tomorrow's RF technology always concentrates in today's shit bands, because dealing with said shit is easier than fighting Big Co or Big Gov knuckleheads for access to prime spectrum. 60GHz is the next shit band on the list. That's all there is too it.Shortwave radio: these bands were initially considered shit because they didn't travel as far as the long ones. Then people figured it out and they became wildly popular.2.4GHz: designated shit band for microwaves & such to barf noise into. It's no mistake that wifi happened here.60GHz: shit for long distance communication because oxygen absorbs here. The next logical home for innovation.

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:33:49 pm
content: @madires - glad you made it to tell@Chris thanks for linking up. Missed it. Although I'm not comfortable with the two top videos in that thread being now offline for "Rule Violations". What's going on what's going on man!!!Let's see how long it takes for the Aliens to land in my backyard and take me away for raising up that subject lolAny one of you who've done lab research on the bio-vs-high freq at the molecular level please let us know, share, I'd really like to see some genuine test data... out of curiosity of course, not planning some freak weapon or anything like that

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:39:03 pm
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 19, 2020, 06:26:55 pmThat is exactly what the conspiracy was about "1st ever 5G launched was in Wuhan China, folks seen literally collapsing not long after (total lack of oxygen), scientists/expert claim inconsistency with pneumonia symptoms, yadayada, a new virus is born". Pretty worrying stuff... obviously can't be taken seriously unless "DATA" is made available which I've struggled to find, if any at all. Seems like a secret...When alien abduction? just need to know so I can stop eating 24hrs before

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:40:15 pm
content: Quote from: Mecanix on May 19, 2020, 06:33:49 pmAh, yes, oops. Irrc, they were by Covid conspiracy phone mast burning morons (hoping that bag of worms stays back below the radar). They weren't of any value anyway.

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 06:58:56 pm
content: A n y w a y, here more of the same you've already seen I'm sure. That's the one I've been pushed (by YT?) to watch... dummies, can't sleep now lolNot too involved in radio myself, thought I'd ask the pro or see if anyone had any 'half-genuine' looking data to share. That'd be cool.Thanks guys{vid removed} or shall I say {unofficial bs removed} instead

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 07:05:05 pm
content: Please, no. Just no. Totally discredited.I don't see this thread lasting.

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 07:11:04 pm
content: Quote from: Mecanix on May 19, 2020, 06:39:03 pmMy RF skills are home grown but by molecular physics expertise is formal and professional.What the hell do they think 60GHz photons are doing to the oxygen? Transmuting it? If it were this easy to transmute elements, fusion would be trivial, and this little event of theirs would have released or absorbed enough energy to melt Earth's crust and blow the flaming pieces into space. 60GHz photons are orders of magnitude too weak even to upset the electrons, let alone the nucleus. This is going to be, at most, a rovibrational absorption. The photon hits the oxygen molecule and... wait for it... it spins. Or wiggles. Or both. But it probably just spins.Since the oxygen molecule is already swimming in an ocean of spinning and wiggling molecules, because that's what it means for a gas to have a temperature above zero, the slight increase in spin and wiggle of the struck oxygen molecule quickly get transferred to its neighbors ("thermalized"), raising the ambient temperature by approximately nothing -- an equal "approximately nothing" to the original energy content of the photon divided by the specific heat of air.

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 07:19:56 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on May 19, 2020, 07:05:05 pmoh I see... that bad huh lol. Wiped out that nonsense, let see how it goes.If indeed true what they say then it was a pleasure talking to you here, Chris, see you in another life

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 07:24:32 pm
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 19, 2020, 07:11:04 pmAppreciate the time you took to respond, extremely informative and good pointers already. I'll try to find one or two hours tomorrow (when home) and look into this deeper, I'll possibly snip some of the keywords you've kindly put up for us and see where this bring.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 07:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: Mecanix on May 19, 2020, 07:19:56 pmSorry for the short answer, I watched as much of the video as I could bear, same old stuff. Please take the time to read through the other thread I linked, it been has pretty much done to death there already.

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 07:49:42 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on May 19, 2020, 07:35:38 pmNo worries, my bad after all.Watched up to until he start using reversed psychology, 2.5min mark or something and moved onto the next on the list (again, pushed by YT as recommended-for-you, wtf) and nearly fell to sleep. That's what brought me here instantly... where better place to find that "genuine engineer" to ask than here. Long story short that's about it...I've peeked in the other thread, yet seen scientific evidence(s) nor data so that's going to be a hard nut to crack.Grateful to Jonathan for the pointers so far. Surprise... you have a physician on your forum!

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 08:03:39 pm
content: That's the problem, thereis noscientific evidence of a link, only non or pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory. There is plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary as jjoonathan has intimated.Added to which, 5G uses the same frequency bands as terestrial TV (some of the spectrum cleared out for it) and wifi, and at similar or lower power levels.

author: Mecanix
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 08:18:06 pm
content: Sensitive subject I'm feeling. Apologies if I've offended anyone or bored others. This is rather new to me and was simply concerned, didn't know where to start my research and looking for views or pointers.Thank you for your patience, you've been great and supportive. Wish you guys a wonderful day

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 08:28:20 pm
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 19, 2020, 07:11:04 pmFYI there are no photons in 60GHz EM transmissions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 08:56:42 pm
content: Quote from: ogdenOh? You just linked to a page that not only discusses at length the reasoning and history behind why you're wrong, it even explicitly plugs relevant values into Planck-Einstein (E=hf) to calculate that a 30GHz photon has about 124 micro electron volts of energy and lists that in a table at the top!Besides, we are talking about *these*. Look at this spectrum and tell me why this interaction isn't quantized:

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 09:36:59 pm
content: Sorry, that was needlessly harsh. I imagine you're thinking about the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, and that's an important one. If a photon has ~electron-volts of energy (4000 times the energy of a 60GHz photon), it can bump electrons between orbitals and do chemistry. It's no mistake that our eyes are good at detecting photons of these energies / wavelengths, because our eyes work using chemistry.

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 09:46:45 pm
content: Also, it leads into the funniest part of this all: the world around us is bathed in a high-intensity 1000 watt per m^2 flux of far-terahertz radiation that has proven beyond a doubt its high chemical activity and ability to cause cancer! People intentionally expose themselves to it with the goal of making their skin a slightly darker shade of beige. Remember your sunscreen, folks.I bet we could come up with a pretty gnarly description of the visible light emitted by phone screens, too. Just think: it penetrates your skull and focuses onto the surface of your nervous system where it does chemistry to alter your thoughts using patterns under government control. Oh, the humanity

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 09:56:33 pm
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 19, 2020, 09:36:59 pmYes, thank you for pointing out. My statement was wrong indeed.QuoteExactly. What's the point of talking about 5G /60GHz "photons" if they have much less energy compared to IR radiation coming out of your own body!

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2020, 10:43:23 pm
content: QuoteThey still interact with matter in a way that we can precisely describe and which leads to those distinctive spiky spectra (the spectrum I posted earlier was CO). The spectra themselves are useful for identifying chemicals, both on Earth and in space, and they serve as evidence that quantum mechanics is a correct description of how atoms and molecules behave.That's important because classical physics from Newton and Maxwell doesn't predict atoms or molecules. They have nothing to say about chemistry, and by extension biology, life, and most of the "stuff" around us. They're incomplete. If you were to "turn off" quantum physics for a moment and run the universe just using Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations, all of the air, water, people, etc around you would dissolve into a swirling toilet bowl of particles. Quantum mechanics describes why particles snap together to form atoms, why atoms snap together to form molecules, and (to a lesser extent) why molecules stick together to form all of the wonderful solids, liquids, and gasses around us. Quantum mechanics is the physics of chemistry. It's important for us to know how it works, and since the simplest theory we have that matches our observations is certifiably nuts we need to confirm it somehow.Atomic and molecular gasses are simple enough to describe using quantum mechanics yet macroscopic enough to experimentally probe. Their distinctive spiky spectra cannot be explained by Newton's laws or Maxwell's equations, but they can be computed using quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics not only predicts the correct frequencies and amplitudes for the spikes, it assigns a physical interpretation to each spike (e.g. the molecule absorbs a photon and begins to spin one quanta faster around its major axis), and the physical interpretation has second-order effects that can also be observed.Lots of non-trivial correct predictions make the "quantized particles interacting under the laws of quantum mechanics" story compelling, while lots of trivial, incorrect predictions make the "Newton and Maxwell are enough to describe the universe" story not compelling. Obviously one should use the simplest theory suited for any given purpose, but Maxwell's equations aren't suited for a first-principles description of the interaction between 60GHz radiation and oxygen molecules. We need to use quantum mechanics for that purpose, and with quantum mechanics comes a description of EM radiation not as a continuum but as a collection of photons.Fields make a comeback if you dig one level deeper down the rabbit hole, but we don't need to do that in order to describe the interaction between molecular oxygen and 60GHz radiation. Quantum mechanics is good enough for that.

author: Miti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 01:07:43 am
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 19, 2020, 09:46:45 pmYou mean this sunscreenhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banana-baby-boat-sunscreen-1.4136851? Pick your cancer...I agree that 5G danger may be BS but more and more serious scientists link cancers and other modern diseases to vitamin D deficiency.

author: profdc9
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 03:03:33 am
content: What do microwaves do to you?Source: I am an electrical engineer that has worked with in both laser spectroscopy and microwave radar.They can heat you. There are several mechanisms for this. The main mechanism is ohmic losses, where free carriers are vibrated at the same frequency as the incoming radiation and due to interactions with the carrier's environment, give up its motion as heat.In some cases, there can be resonances, especially in the gas phase. These are rotational resonances. For a rigid rotor with a moment of interia I, the energy levels are given by E=J(J+1) hbar^2 / 2I, where J is the total angular momentum quantum number. Because of decoherence, this ends up as heat as well. This is probably not an important mechanism in liquid and solid media like the human body, but there are absorption bands in the microwave region in the atmosphere for water vapor, for example.One thing you can get are dimensional resonances. That is, the shape of a particular structure might be resonant at a particular frequency and enhance the absorption. Veritasium made a cool video about this I recommend:At any rate, the dielectric constant of human tissue is quite high, on the order of 20-80 depending on the tissue type, and also very lossy, so the wavelength is much smaller in human tissue so that dimensional effects can potentially become important even for structures much smaller than the free space wavelength.The power used in modern handsets is on the order of 10 to 300 mW, that is 10 to 24 dBm. This is a very small amount of power. Now it is true that with a short wavelength more of this will be absorbed near the surface. For example, the military has constructed a 94 GHz microwave area denial system that is intended to disperse crowds by heating skin. You can definitely feel this. It is unlikely that even if a handset was placed next to you and transmitting at 300 mW you would be able to tell. Since it takes 4.2 J to raise 1 g of water by 1 C, 300 mW would raise 1 g of water by 0.07 C/sec. A person weights a lot more than a gram, and heat conduction and convection would probably prevent any significant heat build up anyways.Now if you had really strong fields, like those in a microwave oven, you can get dielectric breakdown. You can get effects like ionic and avalanche conduction in plasmas. For example, placing a candle in a microwave oven:But the fields radiated by handsets are nowhere near the field strength needed to do this. But it's cool to watch in the microwave.Real Engineering did a great video about 5G as well recently:I don't think I will convince anyone using facts and stuff, but you gotta try.

author: TheUnnamedNewbie
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 09:08:37 am
content: Regardless of how stupid it may seem to us, it is important that we avoid mocking/laughing at conspiracy theorists and people who are genuinly scared.Nobody wakes up in the morning and goes "I'm gonna start throwing out my sanity and believe conspiracies instead today!".Yes, many of these people might suffer from what we like to colloquially call 'Dunning-Kruger'. It sucks, and it can be frustrating to deal with. But if we start mocking them, you will only push them further away from the truth and create a larger divide. Patience and tolerance is the only way I think we can help these people come to understand the errors in their reasoning. If you mock someone who is scared, even if their rational self agrees with the reasoning, they are unlikely to trust/believe you. And why would they, you were just an asshole to them.Elitism/mocking of people by those with deep understanding and education is in part what enables this kind of thing in the first place.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 12:18:51 pm
content: Education is the best way to help the lost sheep but you can't do much about conspiracy theorists, especially the older ones. They are simply too stubborn in their way of thinking. With social media and the attention industry as multiplier I'm not surprised about the current situation.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 04:59:19 pm
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 19, 2020, 10:43:23 pmSpeech of a stranger also intgeracts with you and matter around. So what?

author: jjoonathan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 05:37:03 pm
content: Quote from: ogden on May 20, 2020, 04:59:19 pmRead the next 12 sentences of the post you quoted and maybe you'll find out.

author: ogden
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2020, 06:02:40 pm
content: Quote from: jjoonathan on May 20, 2020, 05:37:03 pmAmount of energy received was not addressed in your 13 sentences of, so I quoted only first.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 21, 2020, 10:22:33 pm
content: I think the answer to all questions about RF are, it depends. Some people here, and some governments apparently too, seem so desperate to make claims that it is "totally harmless". I find that to be really irresponsible because clearly thats not true.Since the question is about5Gpeople should state that average hadset power of5Gsystems is higher than an average handset now."The maximum EIRP is regulated to be 43 dBm for mobile stations (MSs) by the FCC"Huo, Yiming, Xiaodai Dong, and Wei Xu. "5G cellular user equipment: From theory to practical hardware design."IEEE Access 5 (2017): 13992-14010.Average use outdoors in urban areas is likely to be much lower - because of the duty cycle it could be much lower. But indoors - inside of large metal buildings, the power output has to rise. When a mobile station is trying to reach a base station in adverse conditions, such as when its inside a metal building, the power goes up.Comfort and battery life must also limit the practical power usage as much as safety considerations, I bet. Manufacturers certainly don't want phones to run uncomfortably hot. Also, internal RF blocks are limited in how much power can be emitted by possible co-interference (although cell phones typically are not transmitting and receiving at exactly the same time, because of the pulsed and precisely timed nature of the medium.)An objective investigation of the issue leads me to believe that its a mixed bag. I do believe that frequent use of a cell phone pressed against your head is almost certainly unhealthy and might in some cases cause cancer. (In people who use cell phones a very great deal I'd be surprised if the risk was not significant) otherwise, why have any cellphone RF limits at all?We do have them and they are for a reason. Also, one may have co-morbidities. In my case at that time I was living in an unhealthy environment and at that time I certainly did notice effects when using my own cell phone in the typical manner. But around five years ater it emerged that the apartment I was living in had an astronomical amount of toxic mold in its attic. So I have no doubt that had something to do with my suceptibility to effects which consisted of tinnitus and mild headaches, and a feeling that something was not normal after using my cell phone for more than just a short call. This was with a non 5G cell phone, an old TDMA one. (an Ericsson) Later on I had a Motorola v60 TDMA phone and although it had phenomenal range it never caused issues for me. It had a wired hands free, which I prefer. (unfortuately they arent available on most newer phones. )Its wise to avoid taking unnecessary risks if one can. Also, Bluetooth is both a privacy and security risk.Actually, come to think of it I have an old friend who several years ago was diagnosed with a brain tumor. he actualy works in the electronics industry now and has for a long time. Was the tuumor on that side of his head? What are his thoughts on if it might have been caused by a cell phone? To be honest, I dont know. And I havent asked him because every time Ive spoken with him Ive just been happy he was alive. But there are people who have gotten rare cancers where it seems it likely was caused by a cell phone. People who used their cell phones a real lot, because they thought it was unavoidable.Also, what are its effects on the brain, on memory, attention and long term potentiation? (learning)what are the effects of cell pones on children?The problem is some people think if a little is okay, lots more, and then lots more on top of that must be okay too.Its not, necessarily.A few years ago the UK government published a report which had enough issues with it to make it subject to a lot of criticism. Clearly they went into it already having decided what their "findings" were going to be.(See critical analysis: Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation : Reviews on Environmental Healthhttps://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.xmlAs somebody who reads a lot of health related research I know that the science on RF exposure is still evolving rapidly.Also, there are lots of different kinds of RF exposures. 5G is kind of scary because it uses dozens of different frequency bands, and the pulsed power is very high. Sometimes.Some amounts of power for some kinds of 5G activities (pulsed) are a lot higher and the placement of cells much denser than anything I've seen before. Some cellphone executives have expressed doubts over whether it is even needed.At the same time, many communities in the US are not served by any kind of broadband at all, a real problem right now. Cost is also a major problem for families that may no longer have any income or who are living off unemployment which will soon run out.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/technology/coronavirus-broadband-discounts.htmlWhen broadband providers invest in services upgrades which are unsuccessful, they dont eat that cost, they pass it on to customers.Ive been following the issue and I have yet to see the applications that need what this system is proposing. (Can anyone here give me some examples? I bet you cant)Is this really smart? Given thatwe really dont knowwhat the health effects for people who live right next to one of these 5G sites will be. (They also might impact electronics) And anybody who claims that we "know" what its health effects would be is failing to grasp the situation..Smart people realize the limits to our knowledge. The more we learn, the more we also should realize we dont know. So given the already huge health challenges we face from innumerable other environmental threats to public health, including boring old ones like air pollution, combined with recent science (unfortunately not very well known to the general public) proving that in some people, (pregnant women) the effects of pro-oxidant exposures(hundreds of different kinds of exposures can be lumped together as having pro oxidant mechanisms of action, including what we know about RF) add up, and can be devastaing to unborn children because at that specific time in the lifecycle (and others) these different kinds of expoures are too much - in the case of unborn children glutathione depletion effects cell differentiation at a very low level. It might even make having a baby unsafe. We are actually already at the point where amounts of pro oxidant toxicants found in the environment are demonstrably unsafe. Some are quite common. While a fetus is in the womb. If living near a cellular base station causes depletion of glutathione (thats the problem) its eventually likely to cause those kinds of problems in a dose related manner. . (Cell sites often are put on the roofs of apartment buildings or on telephone poles just a few feet from peoples dwellings)Just like lots of other toxicants like diesel exhaust already are known to cause health problems, its not unlikely that at some power level that will be shown to also be unsafe.We should not rush into creating new risks like we are. What we're seeing is very irresponsible behavior, especially given that nobody actually needs that kind of connectivity yet, and also that many areas have literally no connectivity at all yet. With millions of people here in the US having lost jobs and many of them also having lost their health coverage and unable to afford "COBRA" its very unwise to create new health risks of any kind.Think of it this way, every new dumb chemical or RF emitting device that somebody else might think is just the greatest thing, quite possibly might turn out to take a little bit away from the collective health of those around it. If they all use it and together, decide they want it, great, but if its just forced on them, its not great, its bad.Here is what I consider to be a key issue.What happens if its unambiguously discovered its really unhealthy at some time in the future, who should pay? who should bear the cost of removing it, shutting it down?It may be very hard to the way things are going.Just like all you folk who live in countries where healthcare is free or cheap, would you feel the same way about risks if getting cancer was almost guaranteed to bankrupt you and cause you to lose your home and everything you owned and maybe even become homeless? (as it is in the US for a very large percentage of us who are more and more hopelessly underinsured (most Americans)

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 21, 2020, 10:36:32 pm
content: Quote from: profdc9 on May 20, 2020, 03:03:33 amIt's worth noting theaveragepower (integrated into thermal energy) is low, but the transmitter is pulsed. The transmit power is much higher while the transmitter is active, but the average is low because of the low duty cycle. The real contention (which I suspect is wrong) is that RF power in the form of randomly distributed photos knock into proteins, and because the photons are randomly spread some proteins will be hit with a cluster of photons while others are missed. These proteins might get damaged. Since statistically few proteins are damaged and the energy is low there is no significant heat generation. This is different from applying an external heat source like boiling water of a flame, and heating through diffusion. I think it's wrong though, in that it would take sufficiently many photons to damage a piece of DNA that it's so statistically improbable it can be dismissed, but I haven't seen it calculated. I also suspect as soon as one protein is targeted it will so quickly diffuse the thermal energy nothing really happens.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2020, 05:20:43 am
content: There is pretty small risk that RF emission with 5-10 W peak power can damage live cell, because power flux density is relatively low. It needs antenna with a very sharp directivity in order to do such damage.But there is another issue with RF emission. Since RF signal is modulated it can be used to induce:1) thermal waves in a live organism, it leads to mechanical pressure waves with modulation frequency. So, you can modulate RF carrier with specific low frequency wave which may cause harm for live cells (for example, mechanical resonance can affect biochemical reactions or something like that). I'm not fluent with biochemistry in a live cell, so I cannot say how specific thermal and mechanical waves can affect it and how it can be dangerous.2) low frequency electrical waves in a live organism (due to intermod distortions RF signals can produce low frequency components), again it can affect biochemistry in a live cell, also such electrical currents may affect cardiac activity or interaction of neurons in the brain.I'm very skeptic that such thermal and electrical waves can make instant harm for people body, because short exposure leads to a very small changes and the body will recover quickly. But if it will be applied for a long time, for example 24/7, then this potentially can lead to various disorders and diseases. At least there is present scientific research that electrical waves from GHz range RF emission with such power can affect cell biochemistry.In short, I don't think that 5G can make some physical harm, at least if you don't sit near transmission antenna 24/7The problem from 5G may come from a completely different side, such technology can be used to make total spying and and help totalitarian regimes to control peoples. But this danger does not come from the technology itself, but from people who can use this technology to remove people freedom.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2020, 11:35:19 am
content: Quote from: TheUnnamedNewbie on May 20, 2020, 09:08:37 amHow do you propose this should be approached? IME any actual evidence provided will be immediately dismissed as part of the conspiracy, they simply aren't willing to listen or look at anything that challenges their preconceptions. Dealing with a combination of poor education and possible mental health issues is very difficult.

author: TheUnnamedNewbie
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2020, 11:55:47 am
content: Quote from: mikerj on May 22, 2020, 11:35:19 amI don't know. I agree that this is an incredibly challenging problem to solve, and I have no idea how to solve it. I actually think this is one of the biggest problems for the pedagogical and scientific communities to tackle in the 21st century.But regardless of that, I do think that mocking them, or getting worked up during discussions about it isnotthe right approach and will do more harm than good. But at the same time I also understand that it can be incredibly frustrating to have to deal with people who just use logical fallacies to dismiss your arguments. I think this is one of the core problems when scientists try to talk to conspiracy theorists; scientists assume that we are all agreeing on the same 'axioms' (eg, the scientific method, laws of thermodynamics, and basic physics). In my experience this is often not the case (usually they will argue along the lines of 'but you can't know *first law of thermodynamics*, it hasn't been tested' or whatever), and as a result, all the techniques and rules that we are used to applying in our scientific reasoning are useless, and discussing from those axioms is also pointless. Like, imagine trying to argue with someone about potential energy in an object, but (often without realizing it) they just blatantly disagree with you on how gravity works. There is no way you are going to convince them because they assume that you are arguing from false assumptions.Also keep in mind that most of the people who are scared (in the 5G case) are not the die-hard conspiracy theorists. My experience with those is the same as yours, but when it comes to the people who are on the fence or just worried, I have had some of them just listen patiently to me, listened to their fears, and just help lead them to see what false assumptions or fallacies those are rooted in, with positive effect. Very often, they are just not versed in the scientific method and abstract skeptical analysis of claims. They lack the scientific literacy to recognize between two articles titled '8 pieces of evidence that prove 5G causes rainbow unicorns' from 5Gismeanandevil.org and 'Analysis of fur color patterns in modern unicorns based and its relation to electromagnetic radiation exposure in the VHF and UHF bands' from Nature. And I think we all know which one of the two is going to be more understandable to the average reader on the internet...EDIT: perhaps this is a discussion we can take outside of this specific topic into the more general chat area of this forum?

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2020, 01:51:03 pm
content: You're talking about non 5G phones there.Quote from: bson on May 21, 2020, 10:36:32 pm

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2020, 02:07:41 pm
content: You're trying to frame a complicated situation in a way that assumes you are right, and being scientific, when in fact you are not in fact behaving scientifically or considering the whole problem. You're approach is painfully obvious to me. The way to address it is to not decide at the outset that you are going to do something and then merely pretend to have a "debate" about it, that in fact is not a debate.Quote from: mikerj on May 22, 2020, 11:35:19 amIf your area of expertise is RF engineering, that is a decidedly different area of expertise than the medical sciences. It may turn out that RF at some levels is safe but at other levels and or frequencies isn't.Given the likelihood that these 5G base stations are literally going to be on every block, and most people now carry a cell phone, there is a real need for whatever we do to be safe.Erring on the side of (pre)caution seems to me like the only reasonable behavior!You guys are understating the power involved here.Lets look at what is planned for 5G in the way of NEW technologies."The biggest difference in V5G and 5G NR is the application focus: V5G is limited to fixed wireless access at 28 GHz, but the 5G NR is targeting all wireless communications applications (fixed and mobile) for all frequencies. V5G intended to deploy a high density of cm-Wave/mm-Wave small cells (i.e., base stations) that will communicate with commercial box set UEs, such as a wireless MODEM or a cable box. With the billions of wirelessly connected devices available for 5G, it becomes particularly critical that one must minimize the power consumption of individual wireless devices and back station/base station (BST) as well as the overall 5G system power consumption to achieve the critical reduction in energy usage spec by almost 90% over existing 4G networks . Instead of only using the sub-6 GHz spectra like the 2G/3G/4G cellular networks have done in the past, at least some of the 5G devices and networks will also operate at the higher cm-Wave and mm-Wave frequencies to benefit from larger available spectrum bandwidth, smaller-sized massive MIMO phased-array antennas for 3-Dimensional Beamforming (3DBF).It is well-known the performance of a radio-frequency power amplifier (RF PA) can often dominate the overall transmitter (TX) performance, as its power-added efficiency (PAE) dictates the power and heat dissipation for the entire TX. For enhanced user experience and massive MIMO antennas at cm-Wave/mm-Wave frequencies, the 5G system will require more PAs to be integrated in the RF front-end modules (FEMs), making the design of a 5G PA more critical than that of a 4G PA. To any successful commercial 5G application, the output power (), linearity, reliability, cost, and form factors of a PA are all very important.Figure 1 illustrates an example of attractive 5G FEM IC array design in cm-Wave/mm-Wave for phased-array MIMO antennas. The 5G PA, low-noise amplifier (LNA), T/R switches, phase shifter, and various passives are all integrated into the FEM IC as shown in Figure 1, whose architecture is rather different from their 3G/4G counterparts and also with a much higher level of IC integration. In some cases the antennas may be directly packaged on top of the FEM IC on the wafer-scale to achieve even higher integration with reasonable performance [3, 4]. The high integration requirement of FEM ICs and massive antenna systems may favor silicon-based technologies for 5G mobile products, even though GaAs or GaN FEMs usually have better performances than their silicon counterparts [3–7]. In addition to the high integration requirement, as the TX operation frequency moves to cm-Wave/mm-Wave frequencies, it has been well-recognized as a very difficult task to design a high-efficiency linear PA to overcome the overheating issue for successful massive MIMO realization. Note that we consider the 15 GHz and 28 GHz devices as operating at cm-Wave but not mm-Wave frequencies in this review, even though the industry often “mis-labels” those devices as “mm-Wave devices” for marketing purpose. For example, Qualcomm’s 5G New Radio (NR) demonstrated an impressive “5G mm-Wave” prototype phone in A.D. 2017 operating at 28 GHz, but it should really be called as cm-Wave prototype as it never operates above 30 GHz. In this paper, we will focus on surveying the latest key development and design examples on the cm-Wave 5G PA design (i.e., at 15 and 28 GHz), since the cm-Wave 5G devices and networks will most likely be deployed earlier than their mm-Wave counterparts. In a particular case, Qualcomm is accelerating mobile deployments for smartphones based on 5G NR Release-15 specification, where the cm-Wave RF front-end design is optimized in a smartphone form factor, with multi-MIMO, adaptive beamforming, and beam tracking, supporting 5G NR interoperability testing and over-the-air trials . Many other companies are devoting lots of resources in realizing the 5G revolution as well, where we believe the sub-6 GHz bands and the cm-Wave frequencies will be utilized first. Note the 15-GHz band was expected to be allocated for 5G, but in WRC15 it was not assigned as a candidate band."(Source : A Review of 5G Power Amplifier Design at cm-Wave and mm-Wave FrequenciesD. Y. C. Lie ,1 J. C. Mayeda,1 Y. Li,2 and J. Lopez1,3Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, Special Issue: RF Front-End Circuits and Architectures for IoT/LTE-A/5G Connectivityhttps://www.hindawi.com/journals/wcmc/2018/6793814/2018https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6793814-----------------So the power is much higher and the architecture of portions of 5G systems are very different.IMHO, the use of phased array antenna systems on the base stations which also use substantial power levels make these systems different enough from the existing system that they could become matters of health concern. Frankly, I don't know.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2020, 12:03:58 am
content: ok, find a good quality hi-fi with decent power and speakers.Have a full lunch, then stand a metre away in front of the speakers.Play a LOUD 30-50Hz tone while your meal is being digested.See, easy.Non ionising radiation at a very low frequency will shake your dinner out onto the floor.5G not required.Enjoy !

author: Syntax Error
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2020, 12:50:21 am
content: Quote from: SL4P on May 25, 2020, 12:03:58 amDude the brown note!!! Legend.Think ourselves lucky we didn't have to use these pre-G phones from a century ago. This battery 'brick' radiophone from the 1920s was giving out xrays. X-rays dude! It's even got a needle meter. And that can't be good.(yes teenagers, the concept of the mobile phone is over 100 years old)Cite: Electronics World 1920

author: tkamiya
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2020, 12:42:08 am
content: I think this is just another case of people being afraid of things they don't understand. As I understand it, there is no such thing as a 5G band. It uses multiple frequency bands from UHF to SHF, depending on geographical location to government regulation.What I am afraid of is 5G is going to create a single point of failure. Lose it, and half of infrastructures goes down. Redundancy is a good thing especially in disasters.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2020, 12:50:08 am
content: Fully implemented 5G with all the options, uses a mesh topology - which unless the redundant coordinating controllers go down, minimises that single point of failure.

author: TheUnnamedNewbie
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2020, 06:45:12 am
content: Quote from: tkamiya on May 26, 2020, 12:42:08 amYou must surely see the irony in this? Your fear is unfounded because 5G is not a single system. It is a group of protocols, over various bands, with various implementations and providers of infrastructure. How is this a single point of failure? Towers already have crazy amounts of redundancy, often because (at least where I live) there are governmental minimum service quotas, saying they need uptime even in the event of major power and infrastructure failure.

author: picooper
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: May 26, 2020, 07:02:38 am
content: You can't quarantine stupid!

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2020, 07:43:36 am
content: And this says it all...https://gph.is/g/4MoReNB

author: tkamiya
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2020, 04:27:40 pm
content: No, there is irony. I just proved a point; although unintentionally.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2020, 03:39:21 am
content: Sorry for the delay replying, my single point of failure - my brainwas down.All good now

author: tkamiya
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2020, 06:29:42 am
content: Come to think of it, I did experience long outage. I live in Central Florida!I do have redundancy in telephone service. POTS and cell. Due to illness in the family, being able to reach out is essential. If it's mesh type topology, I guess it does have increased resiliency. But there got to be a vulnerability somewhere. We'll find out what it is once it's in service.

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2020, 06:52:36 am
content: Of course!The Mobile Phone Industry Complex found the perfect solution to battle network congestion.Decimate customers.

author: Lord of nothing
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 08:23:53 am
content: QuoteWell it got produced by the US and was spread in China do to there trade war.Its funny Trump start a Trade war against China and what happen? A Virus in China start...

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 01:37:01 pm
content: In DPRK it's illegal to use a pay as you go Chinese cell phone to call your relatives in the South. But places (near the border) do have coverage from Chinese cell towers.So, in those areas, they actually do hunt their (competition's) customers down and sometimes, "decimate" them.Quote from: borjam on May 27, 2020, 06:52:36 am

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 02:56:56 pm
content: Some are trying to make a quick buck selling a "5GBioShield with a holographic nano-layer catalyser":https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52810220TL;DR: It's a totally overpriced 128MB USB stick.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 03:41:32 pm
content: One thing I seldom see in technical discussions of cell phone risk is the distinction between "near field" energy and "far field" radiation power. Of course, as we go higher in frequency, the wavelength shrinks and therefore the distance for "near field" reduces. "Near field" region stores energy in the oscillating (not traveling) EM field near the transmit antenna, while far field power is the useful EM traveling wave propagating away from the antenna at a distance greater than the wavelength. The relation between these two values depends on the antenna geometry, and the mathematical description of the transition between the two regions is messy. In communications, objects near the antenna can absorb substantial power from the near field energy, reducing the efficiency of the transmitter system. Presumably, holding a phone against your skull has a similar effect. Most of the discussion I have seen is relevant to the question of siting cell antennas near to schools, etc., where the victims are in the far field and the power density hitting them is the relevant parameter. In the near field region, the relevant parameter is "SAR" (specific absorption rate) in W/kg: there are regulations for MRI and cell phones, based on models for human anatomy. Last year, there was a muckraking article in the Chicago Tribune that reported independent tests of existing cell phones, showing some that exceeded the FCC regulatory limit--the manufacturers blamed software.https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-20190821-72qgu4nzlfda5kyuhteiieh4da-story.html(Paywall).

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 05:35:55 pm
content: Quote from: madires on May 29, 2020, 02:56:56 pmYes, they're already on the radar...https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/5g-bio-shield/

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 06:43:02 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on May 29, 2020, 05:35:55 pmBe careful, these "quantum scalar energy" stickers for "emission protection" contains radioactive materials from nuclear waste. They can be dangerous for your health.But you can use it to check and calibrate your radiation detector

author: borjam
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 29, 2020, 08:02:40 pm
content: Anyway it's a little known secret. Ham radio license IDs are made of a special stuff that makes you invulnerable to EMR.

author: FransW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2020, 10:35:27 am
content: 5G is just a moneymaker.Not for the consumer but for the industry.Do not fool yourselves, you are just being set-up.Frans

author: HB9EVI
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2020, 11:46:02 am
content: funny about all the 5G panic is, that their exponents offer at the same time the so called Lakhovsky-Generator for revitalizing water or treat your joint problems:https://gesund-auf-den-punkt.de/produkt/wasservitalisierer-lakhovsky-tesla/those things not only sell for a tremendous high price, but they also disturb our 2m hamradio band (144,015MHz)

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2020, 02:14:11 pm
content: Wait until they will find out about UV-C death rays and move into bunkers and other underground facilities.It's a mad world.

author: Lord of nothing
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2020, 02:39:07 pm
content: Quoteomg how about earth rays???

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2020, 12:27:52 am
content: Dilbert Gets it:https://assets.amuniversal.com/4ba23ae010ac0139362c005056a9545dOh, by the way, will inhaling spinning oxygen molecules cause break dancing???Maybe I'll try some and enter the Olympics.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2020, 10:42:56 am
content: Quote from: Lord of nothing on December 09, 2020, 02:39:07 pmThey will probably use some of their power crystals to deal with that after using a pendulum to figure out the hot spots. No kidding! It's another form of religion.

author: Doctorandus_P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 19, 2020, 08:51:32 pm
content: I once went through an MRI scanner.My head went in first, but at the end, my feet came out first.Totally weird.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 19, 2020, 09:04:26 pm
content: I hope that you survived the exam--it is customary to remove a corpse feet-first.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 19, 2020, 09:04:59 pm
content: Reality check or not?This paper analyzing an official UK government report's "reporting" of the studies on RF exposure is worth reading. Just being a government doesn't give them a right to spin when science and health is involved.Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiationin: Reviews on Environmental Health Volume 31 Issue 4 (2016)URL:https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/reveh/31/4/article-p493.xml

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 06:43:38 am
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on December 10, 2020, 12:27:52 amThe new Elbonian military radios can transmit on 6G which is known to cure covid and defeat anti vaxers and climate deniers in a debate. It has to be true its on the internet.SEE:https://robs-blog.net/2020/12/15/elbonian-military-radios/

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 08:53:44 am
content: Quote from: FransW on December 09, 2020, 10:35:27 amYeah, mate, I've got shocking news for you, industries don't exist unless they're making money for themselves.