More about 5G (Incl Technical Bits)

• 

  EightImmortals on 01/09/2019 - 08:52

  +2

  yeah.

  "Before I made this video I did not realize the bee's were dying between these 2 poles. I go to this location every week. And almost every week I would find a multitude of bee's dead on the floor were I would park. As I saw more scientist and doctor's coming out on video about how bad 5G is for us and that it hasnt even been tested on the enviroment or people. And even mobile device companys have put in there contracts that they are not responsible for any health issues that happen from 5G. Its kinda scary! And a couple months ago I realized the bee's were dying between the 2 poles. I investigated before I assumed it was from the poles. I searched the property for more dead bee's. But as got further from the radius of the poles there were no more bee's. I totally believe pesticides are killing bee's. But, this shows me that the towers are also killing the bee's. And I wanted to raise awareness that this is happening. I believe they have been testing 5G in many areas, How would they know they work, right! I saw them putting new plate on these towers about 6 months ago. This video is to raise awareness. "

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5IhKHGDKhM

  Imagine what it's doing to human health, and no, I don't CARE what Dr Karl says if it doesn't line up with the evidence.

  • 

    whooah1979 on 01/09/2019 - 09:31

    +2

    Someone will soon come along and say “Faster internet is more important than a few dead animals”.

    • 

      Yummy on 01/09/2019 - 19:39

      Just like driving on fast freeway. Hmmmm road kill hmmmm.

  • 

    loulou1 on 01/09/2019 - 09:59

    -1

    As a wise person once said “correlation does not equal causation”. The bees could have died for a number of reasons, perhaps pesticides were used around the towers to stop insects getting into it and causing issues?

    If 5g “hasn’t been tested on the environment or people” how do we know that it is bad for us?

    • 

      EightImmortals on 01/09/2019 - 10:10

      "If 5g “hasn’t been tested on the environment or people” how do we know that it is bad for us?"

      lols, exactly! There a lot of things that escape proper testing for that exact reason.

      As for your 'correlation doesn't equal causation mantra' that is merely nonsense unless you can show what IS causing the problems if it isn't the towers. It is also a bumber-sticker phrase used by people who don;t want to admit the problems with whatever subject is under discussion.

      • 

        loulou1 on 01/09/2019 - 10:19

        -1

        We don’t know that it is bad for us, conversely we also don’t know that it isn’t. We won’t know until testing is done.

        You can’t say that just because you don’t know for sure what is causing something, that because there is only one thing you think it could be, must be it.

        • 

          EightImmortals on 01/09/2019 - 11:02

          -1

          @loulou1: Logically you are correct…HOWEVER, if there is a phenomenon being observed (dead bees in this case) that we need find the explanation for, then in the absence of RELIABLE data either way we can still come up with an explanation with a high degree of reliability. So what would suddenly cause the death of the bees (assuming the video is legit of course) around newly erected 5G transmitters if it isn't the technology itself? Given there are plenty of scientists and laypeople presenting their concerns over the untested technology including the possibility that it kills insect and other life, then the simplest answer is often the correct one. Until someone comes up with credible evidence to the contrary I will go with common sense. :)

  • 

    ssquid on 01/09/2019 - 11:32

    +1

    The bee's what is dying? Hope it's not their knees, I hear that's the best part.

  • 

    SBOB on 02/09/2019 - 07:08

    Frequencies above, below and including this in the RF band are already being used around the world for various radio wave uses.

    Please explain which of the particular 5g frequencies are the issue, all of which are in the non ionizing spectrum. Can pretty much guaranteed theres already a transmitter or point to point wireless link in your area in a similar frequency band, wherever you are in the world. And yet I don't see any crazy YouTube nutters ranting about those

    • 

      EightImmortals on 02/09/2019 - 09:13

      -1

      I see what you did there. Maybe there are some technologies using these frequencies (though you didn't say where and by whom?) but I can't see where they are blanketed over the population so far.

      "Please explain which of the particular 5g frequencies are the issue"

      The ones that are killing the bees and causing all kinds of health complaints from people.

      "Can pretty much guaranteed theres already a transmitter or point to point wireless link in your area in a similar frequency band, wherever you are in the world."

      Can you? I looked up some data on radio frequencies, perhaps you can elaborate on your claim accordingly?

      https://www.arrow.com/en/research-and-events/articles/what-f…

      "Early GSM cellular networks operated at 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. 2G and 3G networks change the modulation method but largely used the same portions of the spectrum with reorganized frequency bands. As 3G evolved, additional frequency bands were included as well as spectrum around 2100 MHz. 4G LTE technologies brought it additional spectrum and frequency bands, namely around 600 MHz, 700 MHz, 1.7/2.1 GHz, 2.3 GHz, and 2.5 GHz. All of the previous cellular network frequencies are based on licenses (Table 1).

      The 5G frequency band plans are much more complex, as the frequency spectrum for sub-6 GHz 5G spans 450 MHz to 6 GHz, and millimeter-wave 5G frequencies span 24.250 GHz to 52.600 GHz, and also include unlicensed spectrum. Additionally, there may be 5G spectrum in the 5925 to 7150 MHz range and 64 GHz to 86 GHz range. Therefore, 5G will include all previous cellular spectrum and a large amount spectrum in the sub-6 GHz range, and beyond sub- 6 GHz is many times current cellular spectrum (Table 2 and Table 3). The initial 3GPP release of 5G New Radio Non-standalone (5G NR) standards included several sub-6 GHz frequency bands, designated FR1 (Table 2). The second 3GPP 5G release after IMT-2020 will include FR2 frequency bands in the millimeter-wave spectrum (Table 3).

      As with previous cellular generations and 3GPP releases, various regions and countries will also likely adopt unique spectrum for 5G uses. The US FCC, for example, is considering opening 5.925 GHz to 6.425 GHz and 6.425 GHz to 7.125 GHz for unlicensed used and is consulting adding mobile broadband capability in the 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz spectrum. Currently, the FCC is actioning spectrum in the 27.5 GHz to 28.35 GHz, 24.25 GHz to 24.45 GHz, and 24.75 GHz 25.25 GHz, range for millimeter-wave 5G use. The FCC may also be considering opening 3.7 GHz to 4.2 GHz mid-band frequencies for 5G, and may also be considering opening 4.9 GHz public safety bands for 5G access. Moreover, the FCC may also make additional bands available for 5G in the 2.75 GHz, 26 GHz, and 42 GHz bands. In December 2018 the FCC announced an incentive action in the 37.6 GHz to 38.6 GHz, 38.6 GHz to 40 GHz, and 47.2 GHz to 48.2 GHz. Most other developing countries are undergoing similar considerations of spectrum allocation for 5G use cases."

      Looks like a pretty big difference to me.

      Also a read on non-ionising radiation for those who are interested.

      https://www.nwo-i.nl/en/personnel/working-conditions/radiati…

      Not very encouraging if you have a 5G transmitter outside of your house going 24/7.

      Risks with radio wave and microwave fields (10 MHz – 300 GHz)
      Sources of radio wave and microwave radiation are high-frequency generators (gyrotrons, klystrons etc.) and transmitters, microwave ovens, industrial RF heaters, radio and TV antennae, radar installations and mobile phones. Base stations for cordless phones are weak sources.

      Exposure
      Exposure to electromagnetic fields in this frequency range can warm up exposed tissues because these absorb the radio wave and microwave energy and convert these into heat. The frequency level determines the depth of penetration into the body.
      Warming up by this radiation is the most dangerous for the brain, eyes, genitals, stomach, liver and kidneys.
      How deep the radiation penetrates depends on the frequency. If resonances occur in parts of the body then the damage can increase.

• 

  whooah1979 on 01/09/2019 - 10:17

  -1

  Good enough for the FCC, good enough for the world.
  https://www.fcc.gov/5G

  • 

    EightImmortals on 01/09/2019 - 11:05

    Trust us, we're from the government?

    https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/11/28/pro…

    According to decades of buried research reviewed in a March 2018 investigation for The Nation by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie.

    "The wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did, it also borrowed from the same public relations playbook those industries pioneered," Hertsgaard and Dowie reported. "Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. … On the contrary, the industry — in America, Europe, and Asia — has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quack, and that consumers have nothing to fear."

    Their report comes at the same time as several new developments are bringing the issue to the fore, including a Kaiser Permanente study (published in December 2017 in Scientific Reports) finding much higher risks of miscarriage, a study in the October 2017 American Journal of Epidemiology finding increased risk for glioma (a type of brain tumor), and a disclosure by the National Frequency Agency of France that nine out of 10 cell phones exceed government radiation safety limits when tested in the way they are actually used, next to the human body.

    More at the link.

    • 

      kahn on 01/09/2019 - 17:06

      Where were you when this was posted?

• 

  hawkeye on 01/09/2019 - 20:20

  +1

  Gee it's killing bees

  Gee if the phone stays hot in my pocket all day will my willy be OK

  Gee will I still be able to have kids

  Gee will Aldi and Belong sell it for cheap

  Gee wiz I've just used 5Gs and it's doing my head in

• 

  [Deactivated] on 11/09/2019 - 00:12

  -1

  Gee if the phone stays hot in my pocket all day will my willy be OK
  Gee will I still be able to have kids

  As someone who once owned one of those over-heating HP laptops as a student and then went one to father 3 children , including a set of twins, none of which were planned, she'll he'll be right, mate.