advertisement


5G

Rallye_punk

Rallye_punk

pfm Member
I know this is a controversial topic but there some clever people on here who I believe will be able to provide a more accurate and impartial view other than what can be found via Google.

Let me start by saying I am not a flat earth non covid believing tin foil hat wearing conspriacy theorist, however I do not subscribe to the logic that this new tech is safe purely because we are told so many huge corportations and their government associates who are likely affiliated with them in some way or another (re conflict of interest).

I have been 'debating' this topc with friends lately, the reason being that in my local town they are rolling out Huawei data cabs on what appears to be every corner of every road and I suspect these will at some point contain 5G transmitters to facilitate the mode of communication.

My first question is I thought that the UK Gov had banned this company from doing business in the UK?

Secondly, what are peoples thoughts on this and how safe is it really? I know we are all exposed via Bluetooth and 4G and WiFi and other existing tech but the lack of testing around 5G is something that concerns me.

Discuss!
 
As usual the devil is in the detail.
Huawei 5G equipment is banned from installation from Sept 2021 and any installed must be removed by 2027.

as far as your second point The independent International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reckon it’s safe.
Of course if you think they are in cahoots with Satan nothing will reassure you.
 
Nothing controversial at all.
As usual, the same stupid arguments about the imaginary effect of radiowaves.
It is preposterous that Huawei equipment has to be removed. Not so in France, where 5G is slowly starting switch-on in urban areas.
Looking forward to it.
 
Intersting conversation on R4 yesterday (Monday????) - covering lots of the lunatic claims about C19.

They traced all claims about C19 being linked to 5G back to a thick Geordie conspiracy theorist blogger. I kid you not - they even rang him and replayed that on the show. R4 - "More or Less"????? "Vaccinate the World"????????
 
If I recall correctly, millimetre wavelength EM radiation is attenuated by air, also the signal intensity drops according to an inverse square law relationship (that is, reducing by a factor that's the square of the distance from the transmitter), and therefore on average the signal strength we are exposed to is pretty low. I think I saw somewhere on the internet a figure of 1uW on average. If anyone has some real numbers I would be interested to see them.

For context, I'm used to designing and working with high power lasers where the associated power, intensity, frequency (and hence photon energy) are of much greater concern. I have no concerns regarding 5G.
 
5G is a generic term that covers frequencies and modulation schemes, higher data rates require more complex modulation schemes, this is where the phase, frequency and amplitude are all changed or modulated to represent data. To encode and decode the data requires large amounts of processing power and this is the main difference between the various generations rather than some new frequency, most of which have been or are being used already. In fact with 5G the exposure is most likely to be less as you can use beam forming to transmit to the device in use and not to everything not using it as well.
 
russel said:
Well yes but I am not sure of what relevance that comment is.
Click to expand...

Useful info for pfm guests / others who may not be aware of this.

I said this at a family reunion and none of them knew.

My follow up was, that is why you don't have protruding aerials in your mobile phones anymore.
 
Once again this topic has shown up the poor state of science education at school. A brief introduction to the electromagnetic spectrum would put welfare concerns into perspective - there aren't any. 5G occupies a low energy band in the ems and is none ionising with far less energy than that of light with which we need in order to see.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2682/production/_107885890_5ggraphic-nc.png

Cheers,

DV
 
Darmok said:
Useful info for pfm guests / others who may not be aware of this.

I said this at a family reunion and none of them knew.

My follow up was, that is why you don't have protruding aerials in your mobile phones anymore.
Click to expand...
Actually that is not correct. The reason that the aerial no longer sticks out is because of very clever design. Look closely at the metal case of your phone and you'll see lines of insulating material. The case is actually a folded dipole aerial!

Cheers,

DV
 
I have just been sat with my 5G phone next to my head for an hour!

Just you wait until 6G arrives - this uses splodges of energy to move quantum of information encoded in DNA around.....
 
The exact same fears and conspiracy theories about radiation seem to show up every time there is a new version. I was at one time slightly concerned 2 gens ago but then I figured if it really was that dangerous why aren't we seeing a mushroom in cancers head/neck etc. 20+ years of mobiles you would certainly think that it would be evident by now.
 
chartz said:
That reminds me the story of a bunch of people in Lyon who complained they had headaches since the installation of a mobile antenna in their neighborhood.
It turned out the antenna hadn’t been switched on yet.
True story.

Another similar story here (French).
https://www.google.fr/amp/s/www.tomsguide.fr/victimes-dune-antenne-relais-inactive/amp/
Click to expand...
Another similar story happened to me. In the late 1980s I moved from doing semiconductor R&D to digital radio system R&D. The team's experimental cordless telephone PBX was to be installed for trials in a company office. The small, very low power radio base station units were all installed but not turned on. However, several people there complained of headaches and blamed the system. Of course the trial could not continue there, but it all worked at another location without any complaints.
 
Darmok said:
Sorry Darth, I beg to differ...
Click to expand...
It is correct that shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) use smaller antennas. However, that is not the reason phones no longer have protruding (or pull-out, even) antennas. That transition happened while everything was still plain old GSM in the 900 MHz band. What changed was that antenna design improved by cleverly folding up what had previously been essentially a straight wire. Better simulation software probably helped make this possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top