I think your statement is both contradictory and confusing at the same time, and I am not even recovering from a hangover!
How is it contradictory? The government has already mandated an exposure limit. None of the towers in existence now exceeds it and there hasn’t been a single study done that hasn’t exceeded it and still caused health issues. Sweetener has been shown to cause cancer too, in an amount 10x what a person would normally consume, in a study. Just because there’s a study, doesn’t make your fear mongering any more valid.
The way you phrased it!
Right, because we can trust anything the government says to be trustworthy! Yeah sure gotcha!
Right, the same argument can be made about smoking cigarettes too! It may not kill to smoke one , but it’s a slow 30 year death!
1 Like
IEEE is not a government organization.
Also… I’m not guessing or googling. I know this stuff like the back of my hand.
Forty years experience with RF and electromagnetics in general. I offer the benefit of my knowledge here. Take it or leave it.
1 Like
You don’t have to trust the limit. The fact is no adverse health effects have been shown to be caused by any exposure that wasn’t over that limit.
It’s really not a hard concept to grasp.
Actually, no it can’t. You are just as likely to get cancer from smoking 1 cigarette as you are smoking them for 30 years. It’s not the tobacco that gives you cancer. It’s the other chemicals added to it.
You’ve already been shown there have been studies linking the radiation you’re worried about here. Not a single one has been done that wasn’t over the legal exposure limit. Apples and oranges.
I
I will take it! I certainly wouldn’t question someone who is a subject matter expert such as you regarding if this is safe or not, as I want to learn as much as I can whenever an issue arises that we know little about. That being said, (I wish Alex would post the other Video interview of the other person who also spoke on this subject matter too) because the people in the interviews are no dummies either, as they raise other important issues with this and question what the implications are going to be with faster downloads and transfer rates of information in the longer term outlook.(not to mention the security risks that will go to boot for sovereign countries) My point is even though you say its safe, we don’t know what the long term effects are going to be. Could it be fear mongering? Maybe just as we are ingesting this information at point of discovery, but it doesn’t mean we should dismiss it outright either.
For me, its not so much about the frequency in which this is going to be operating on, (although I do have concerns about that, but not for the same reasons as you are articulating) but more to do with the trajectory in which society is going in, such as the Orwellian state. Of course the other is China’s role and the elitists Class and Government’s leading into changing laws, mechanisms to facilitate and to usher in a structure that will no doubt have the means for total control of every aspect of our lives. The other concern is the psychological impact this will have on humans in general, as there is already studies out there on such subject matter that supports a real disconnect between technology and the natural world. The more we rely on technology, (and the fact we live in a time where technology is so rapidly changing) the more that we as a species become disconnected not only from the natural world, but our own natural cognitive functions and for me this is a real issue, one that can not be dismissed outright.
My final point is, you maybe right that this is safe on one level, but that doesn’t mean that debate shouldn’t happen before it’s implementation, once we arrive at a point where that no longer happens, we basically give up our right to challenge government and tech companies wanton need to to do as they wish.
1 Like
It already has. What, you think these studies were dreamt up out of thin air?
Right! Its a circular argument that can be presented with two sides of the coin with different perspectives. And BTW, I wasn’t challenging the legal exposure issue of it, just that there is a long term and a short term aspect of this, and the long term effects is one that no one really knows about, despite reports being done on the subject matter can not answer every question on it…
1 Like
Studies and debate are not the same thing. Please think about this with a little more thought before responding to outright dismiss this altogether!
Good points. And i am not one to take opinions as fact. I even think that the 50/60 Hz field from electrical power has had a terrible effect on us even through mostly everyone else thinks it is harmless. The world generally went crazy with the advent of the electrical grids, even in their early stages.
And also, I don’t discount the hazards of a more ubiquitous millimeter wave field on explosive environments. We even have a name for such …HERF and HERO… hazards of electromagnetic radiation to fuel and ordnance, respectively. So its not like I think RF is all cuddly and warm.
There are tons of published research on EM effects on human tissue though. Reading it would require a whole new vocabulary though for the uninitiated. If you feel the need to dig deeper, the published research will keep you busy for awhile. But have at it. I did it to my satisfaction over 20 years ago.
1 Like
Which is why I have a fair amount of respect for you, as every one of your posts seems to have thoughtful consideration before you post on anything, which says to me you are an intelligent person.
Science is not infallible and is prone to making terrible mistakes. As for example the origins of the aides epidemic, which was of course was tested on an entire population of unsuspecting uneducated people which Monkey organs were used, and when the mistake was identified, peer review became in serious jeopardy and was a paid off narrative in order to silence the debate and its critics altogether.
Like I said I am not an expert in this field, whereas doing extensive research in it wouldn’t benefit my time invested in it, but I may try to skim the subject matter in order to get a general understanding of its effects in layman terms of course. Anyway, thanks for contributing your explanation on this topic.
Who’s doing that? Even the article about the study I linked earlier had to talk about something other than the study to try to prove it’s point. If anything it just goes to show how worthless most studies are.
Not dismissing it. Not getting worked up over it either. There isn’t enough data to bring a conclusion one way or the other. Kind of like global warming. Isn’t that odd?
1 Like
Well your response gives the impression that you are trying to dismiss it. My point is, you maybe right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be debating and exploring the issue to see if there are other inherent risks to consider, such as the psychological impact on society as a whole.
No its not like global warming, as in the other issues I eluded to where there is considerable amount of evidence to suggest that its altering human behavior.
1 Like
Yeah well I’d prefer actual proof myself before we stunt the advancement of technology based on what the evidence “suggests.”
Maybe then provide some evidence that such advancement is beneficial as well. We seem to be fine with 3G and $G, so as you see there are two sides to this argument!
Oh thank goodness! You are absolutely correct. My apologies.
It is 3.5mm … only the nose cavity to worry about then… 
edit: after a quick refresher I remind myself that cross-sectional dimensions for waveguides are comparable to half the wavelength under consideration; which means anything into which a cotton-bud can be comfortably inserted is big enough to propagate RF at the higher frequencies in view.
…which is how the microwave cooker was discovered/invented.
My point is that the wavelengths being proposed or installed are now small enough to penetrate cavities where they would not do so with 4G or earlier technologies.
BTW I am as old as you, have worked in a technological field for a similar time, and have recognised the blinkers that can be acquired by experts in their field.
2 Likes
Yeah.Your point about societal hazards is interesting. I feel the same way with constant updates to Microsoft Office and even Windows. The loss of productivity when new versions are rolled out is well known by businesses. Yet we are made slaves to Microsoft software mafia. But what is a software engineer supposed to do except make new versions. It’s not like the world would be safe if thousands of software weenies were unemployed. They would become the “devil’s hands”… or worse yet… managers. Maybe it is in our better interest to let them make their new versions.
I have no need for more bandwidth personally. But i do need 4G for my Samsung watch. Maybe 5G will enable some capability too.
1 Like