It's not the frequency, it's the power that makes waves dangerous. Your phone, garage door opener, wireless speakers, etc. all use 2.4ghz. So does a microwave oven.
The difference is that the waves used for communication operate at around 0.5 watts of power compared to an oven that is blasting those same waves at around 1,000 watts.
Everything in the world is lethal if misused, or taken in overdose quantities. Even air, water, and sunlight.
People need to understand that the sudden anti-5G hype is being pushed by the companies that don't have 5G networks built yet. They are going to lose many customers, billions of dollars to Verizon, AT&T, and others that have invested into building 5G networks. Those 5G networks are just now starting to go live, hence the sudden fear mongering to try to slow down expansion, so that the loser companies can catch up, and compete.
We have seen this before with the introduction of 3G, and 4G networks. The companies with the better networks get the customers, while the slacker companies lose customers. The big difference this time however, is that the 5G networks are vastly superior to the old tech. It's not just a step up, it's exponentially better than the old stuff. People will drop their old networks, and switch to 5G in mass- a lot of companies that don't have 5G tech stand to lose a lot of money.
I think you're missing the point. Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional. 1 Watt of higher energy radio waves are more dangerous than 1 Watt of a lower energy wave because that power is much more condensed with shorter wavelengths.
These towers also multiple directional antennas. Meaning that power can further be focused to provide more energy to a specific area. They can get as specific targeting a specific cell phone.
Lets say the EFR of a cell tower is 5w (I believe it is somewhere in that range at least). If all that power is able to be focused on a single area the size of a person, there would be significant health concerns. It isn't inconceivable that this could be used as a weapon although I am unsure the EFR limits set by the FCC for these towers and if they are taking into account directional antennas.
This doesn't compare to a .5watt nondirectional wifi router.
There's even an additional problem, and that is that all the alphabet agencies are measuring AVERAGE power. Yet all these digital devices produce pulsed radiation. Nobody is looking at this issue from a biological standpoint. They model the head of a human as a jelly blob, then they stick a thermometer inside it, and if it doesn't rise too far, then everything is fine. It's completely inadequate and insane method to use for biological safety.
view the rest of the comments →
BlueDrache ago
Waaaaaaaaaaaah!!!! non-ionizing radiation is harmful!!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!
Um ... no ... it's not?
Rajadog20 ago
You do realize that 5g waves have a much higher frequency and thus more energy than wavelengths, right? Is a microwave dangerous??
It's all about the frequency of the waves used and how many waves are focused on a small area.
Older teach is less dangerous because it isn't such high energy focused on a small area
VOALTRON ago
It's not the frequency, it's the power that makes waves dangerous. Your phone, garage door opener, wireless speakers, etc. all use 2.4ghz. So does a microwave oven.
The difference is that the waves used for communication operate at around 0.5 watts of power compared to an oven that is blasting those same waves at around 1,000 watts.
Everything in the world is lethal if misused, or taken in overdose quantities. Even air, water, and sunlight.
People need to understand that the sudden anti-5G hype is being pushed by the companies that don't have 5G networks built yet. They are going to lose many customers, billions of dollars to Verizon, AT&T, and others that have invested into building 5G networks. Those 5G networks are just now starting to go live, hence the sudden fear mongering to try to slow down expansion, so that the loser companies can catch up, and compete.
We have seen this before with the introduction of 3G, and 4G networks. The companies with the better networks get the customers, while the slacker companies lose customers. The big difference this time however, is that the 5G networks are vastly superior to the old tech. It's not just a step up, it's exponentially better than the old stuff. People will drop their old networks, and switch to 5G in mass- a lot of companies that don't have 5G tech stand to lose a lot of money.
Rajadog20 ago
I think you're missing the point. Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional. 1 Watt of higher energy radio waves are more dangerous than 1 Watt of a lower energy wave because that power is much more condensed with shorter wavelengths.
https://imgoat.com/uploads/c5bde74a8f/181207.png
https://imgoat.com/uploads/c5bde74a8f/181208.png
These towers also multiple directional antennas. Meaning that power can further be focused to provide more energy to a specific area. They can get as specific targeting a specific cell phone.
Lets say the EFR of a cell tower is 5w (I believe it is somewhere in that range at least). If all that power is able to be focused on a single area the size of a person, there would be significant health concerns. It isn't inconceivable that this could be used as a weapon although I am unsure the EFR limits set by the FCC for these towers and if they are taking into account directional antennas.
This doesn't compare to a .5watt nondirectional wifi router.
qwop ago
There's even an additional problem, and that is that all the alphabet agencies are measuring AVERAGE power. Yet all these digital devices produce pulsed radiation. Nobody is looking at this issue from a biological standpoint. They model the head of a human as a jelly blob, then they stick a thermometer inside it, and if it doesn't rise too far, then everything is fine. It's completely inadequate and insane method to use for biological safety.
Rajadog20 ago
Yeah, FCC guidlines even mention not to be directly under or near cell towers.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-frequency-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites
Does anyone know where to find the reported ERP for these new towers? I am having trouble finding anything to do some math.
qwop ago
This should give you some pointers:
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/20171205/Documents/S3_Christer_Tornevik.pdf
Rajadog20 ago
Got it thanks