The 5G Problem(s)

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Another interesting presentation by The Corbett Report on the issues surrounding the upcoming conversion to 5G wireless technology.

Why does everything need to be connected to the Internet. It doesn't, unless it is really you and everybody else that is meant to be monitored, if not directly, then by inference. And then there is the EMF exposure issue, which will be much more intense than any other period, and no opting out.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What is 5G?

The simple term "5G" covers a wide range of technology. In most respect, in terms of the surveillance issues and EMF exposure issues, it's just more of the same thing that's been going on already. The one thing that's really novel is the use of RF energy in the millimeter wave band, 30 to 300 GHz in frequency, or 1-10mm wavelength.

In Wi-Fi local home/office networking, "5G" refers to operation on the 5GHz (microwave) frequency band. This has been available for several years now, and is widely deployed.

In the cell phone business, "5G" is a marketing term that can refer either to a new industry standard known as "5G NR", or it can refer to upgrades of the earlier 4G LTE technology, incorporating some "5G NR" features. AT&T, for example, is rolling out something called "5G Evolution", and Verizon is deploying their "5GTF" system. AT&T 5G E is basically 4G LTE with improved antennas and the ability to use more carrier frequencies simultaneously. Verizon 5GTF is a competitive or alternate 5G standard which is generally similar to 5G NR, but not compatible. Verizon plans to convert their system to 5G NR when they are satisfied that it meets their performance specifications.

As explained by the industry newsletter 5GUK:

What is 5G NR?
5G NR is a new air interface being developed for 5G. An air interface is the radio frequency portion of the circuit between the mobile device and the active base station. ...
In a nutshell, the 5G NR is being designed to significantly improve the performance, flexibility, scalability and efficiency of current mobile networks, and to get the most out of the available spectrum, be that licensed, shared or unlicensed, across a wide variety of spectrum bands.
The article goes on to describe the many innovations involved, including improved multiplexing waveforms, new station-switching algorithms for lower latency, provisions for node-to-node communications between devices without involving the cell phone tower, and various other incomprehensible and geeky tech upgrades.

Popular articles and presentations about 5G generally focus on two aspects of the new technology. The first aspect is that 5G systems are typically "small cell" setups, meaning that the base stations are located very close together, located on telephone poles or buildings instead of huge towers. Each cellular base station serves only a small area, perhaps only a city block or less.

However, small cell technology is actually nothing new. The carriers have been increasing the density of cellular base stations in highly populous urban areas, and many offices deploy their own "femtocell" base stations to improve service within the building. This has been going on for several years, and there are now 12 million small cell installations worldwide already. The City of Eugene has a website devoted to small-cell and 5G base station deployments, with an interactive map, showing small cell towers popping up all over town. But, both AT&T and Verizon say that their 5G rollout is currently limited to just a few major cities, and only the most densely populated downtown regions of those cities. There are no verifiable reports of 5G coming to Eugene. My guess is that these small cell base stations in Eugene are just old-fashioned 4G LTE small cell stations. Basically, the more towers you have, the more customers you can handle, and the more data you can deliver to those customers.

The other new aspect to 5G is the millimeter-wave RF frequency. This allows more bandwidth for each channel, which gives higher data rates. But, millimeter-wave requires small cell density, because RF in this frequency range is attenuated by passage through air. These millimeter-wave, small-cell networks are the ones being rolled out by AT&T and Verizon in major metropolitan areas. Most cell phones being sold today can't receive or transmit on this band: Samsung has the top-of-the-line Galaxy S10 5G (available only to business customers in the US), but Apple won't have an iPhone 5G model available until next year.

It's said that millimeter-wave signals are poor at penetrating through building materials. Which seems like a pretty significant problem to me.

Elon Musk's new satellite constellation Internet service will presumably use a 5G NR air interface, but it obviously can't use millimeter wave because of the range issue.

Why 5G?

Why does everything need to be connected to the Internet. It doesn't...
The carriers say that this is all demand-driven. Customers are using more data, and more gadgets are being connected to the Internet all the time.

As an American consumer, this all makes perfect sense to me. Once you've seen 4K HDR video, there's no going back. (Well, not really. I can't tell the difference between 4K resolution, and upscaled 1080P, unless I'm sitting six inches from the screen. HDR can be pretty exciting, but mostly it hurts my eyes. I guess I'm getting old and crabby, and my eyeglass prescription needs updated.) And who could resist an internet-connected fridge that keeps an inventory of what's inside, and orders your groceries to be delivered by Amazon drone flight? My daughter has one.

And it's very ecological. At my house, my solar panel array talks directly to its manufacturer, who obviously needs to know whether my system is working or not. Next time I upgrade the setup, I expect that the solar panels will talk to my electric car, and decide when to charge the battery.

Self-driving cars are said to require 5G data rates and latency, to connect with other cars in the vicinity. What happens if the millimeter-wave radio signals are blocked by a passing ice cream truck? The mind boggles.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
5G Health Effects

And then there is the EMF exposure issue, which will be much more intense than any other period, and no opting out.
Effects of exposure to microwaves (1-10 GHz band) has been a concern for a long time, with cell phones and Wi-Fi. I think there's a "scientific consensus" about this. And to be consistent: if one is going to argue in favor of "global warming" based on "scientific consensus" (and I do), then it's only reasonable to at least consider the consensus about microwaves.

And the scientific consensus is, health effects of microwaves come into play only if there's enough intensity to heat the tissues of the body. Cell phone transmitters have about 3 watts of power, which is enough to produce slight but measurable heating in the brain if the phone is held right up to one's ear. So from a consensus basis, it's not completely surprising if chronic and intensive cell-phone users experience a slightly elevated level of pre-cancerous brain tumors. This is the only effect that's been widely acknowledged. Aside from that, these devices are thought to be perfectly safe.

But of course, as Postflavians, we know that "scientific consensus" isn't the last word. Scientists are only human beings, buffeted by numerous external pressures as well as their own internal biases. After years of doing battle within state-sponsored education systems, they are subjected to continuous exposure to billionaire-owned mass media. And then there's the peer review system, and the publish-or perish paradigm, and the grant game. All of these factors can contribute to errors and misinterpretations in scientific publications.

In this case, a very powerful bias is created by the telecommunications companies themselves. If their equipment is dangerous, they certainly don't want to know about it. And neither do their bankers, and neither do the politicians who pass enabling legislation for the systems.

Pressing on the other side, there are foundations that would like nothing better than a new disruptive cause to tout. And, there are always young scientists who just need to get papers published. There's a crisis of repeatability of scientific papers that's in the news right now, caused by a well-known statistical effect that if one tests enough variables, some of them will show "significance" just by random chance. But this isn't so clearly understood that peer reviewers understand it, and furthermore their pharmaceutical company backers don't want it to be understood. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get FDA approval for various drugs of dubious effectiveness.

In addition to all the studies that show zero health effects of low-intensity microwaves, there are some that show some effects. For the most part, the alleged effects are at the limit of statistical detectability, or involve specific biological effects in test tubes. My guess is that most of these results are because of the aforementioned tendency to publish irreproducible results in the quest for academic tenure. But there are some exceptions: for example, it's been proven that (non-ionizing) ultraviolet waves can cause DNA damage.

Some perfectly reputable scientists also believe that tissues are subject to all sorts of resonant effects from RF energy. If these effects exist, they're highly dependent on the specific tissues involved, as well as the characteristics of the RF energy: frequency, power and pulse rate. There's no reason to expect that any of these effects are linear, or predictable, without doing the sort of giant epidemiological studies that nobody wants to providing funding for. With all due respect to the proponents of these theories: this is pretty far out on the fringe.

I think it's prudent to follow a precautionary principle. Why take unnecessary risks? I use my cell phone as little as possible, and when I do, I often use speakerphone mode and hold it well away from my head. I had my house wired with CAT-5 cable, so that I rarely if ever need to turn the Wi-Fi on.

I would argue that for most users, 5G NR cell phone technology will result in less exposure to RF, rather than more exposure. This is because most of the exposure is from the radio transmitter in the cell phone itself. With "small cells", the nearest cell phone tower is going to be a lot closer, so the cell phone will reduce its transmission power accordingly. If the tower is far away, the phone might use its full 3-watt power. But with 5G small cell, it might only need a few milliwatts. One of the expected benefits of 5G, is longer cell-phone battery life due to reduced power requirements.

There's some concern that millimeter wave RF energy could be more dangerous than microwave, because of the higher energy per quantum. But remarkably enough, the actual experimental evidence (such as it is) points the other way. This is all explained in a paper "Medical Applications of Millimetre Waves" (1998) by MJ Rojavin and MC Ziskin of Temple University in Philadelphia. Starting in the former Soviet Union in the 1980's, Russians have been using "Millimeter Wave Therapy" to treat a broad range of conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and bone damage. According to Rojavin & Ziskin, "The reported success rate of MW therapy for various pathologies is astonishingly high." Which, they admit, is difficult to explain in light of the fact that millimeter waves are mostly absorbed in the skin, within 0.5 mm from the surface. Furthermore, they say, "Poor reproducibility of some of the experimental results and the lack of acceptable theoretical models resulted in a significant delay to research activity in this area in the USA." In other words, most American doctors think the Russians are a bunch of quacks.

For whatever it's worth, Rojavin & Ziskin seem to think that the Russians might be on to something. The therapeutic effect is said to occur at intensities of about 20 mW/cm2, which is about equivalent to a 5G cell phone held at 3 cm distance from the body, if anyone wants to try it. Or you might go to the airport and walk through the body scanner, unless they have the X-ray model.

Or if it turns out that both microwave and millimeter wave are equally carcinogenic: with the new technology you'll probably get skin cancer instead of brain cancer.

As for "opting out", it seems that it might actually be easier to opt out of millimeter-wave 5G than any earlier technology. With the old-fashioned microwaves, you really needed a complete metal faraday cage to be totally safe. There might be some benefit from a tin-foil hat or Pastafarian colander, but such an improvisation would leave the brain exposed to waves from below. Whereas a few extra layers of drywall, or some brownstone, might do a pretty good job of attenuating 5G.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
How can you support "scientific consensus," then go on to admit that there's a crisis in repeatability of scientific papers? How can you take as valid a scientific consensus that is supported by oligarchs? Isn't that enough to bring it under suspicion?
Welcome back Miss Kitty. Long time, no see.

I certainly wouldn't argue that "scientific consensus" is the end of the story, or that anybody ought to believe it. I'm just saying that as a starting point for any discussion, it's a good idea to ask whether there is such a consensus. And, to consider the reasoning and evidence behind it.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So, if there is a health danger from 5G it would seem to be at the margins of a respective provider's coverage area, where the field devices' transmitters will necessarily need to ramp to higher power levels.

In any case, I am perhaps more concerned by the civil rights aspects of the 'Panopticon', that Miss Kitty's heros of the coming new order will impose upon us, as they have explicitly stated -- shown in Corbett's piece. The real Deep State (not discussed by Agent Orange Leaks) is intent on protecting cryptoJews like Miss Kitty from threats, albeit mostly fake. No different than when the globalsit Christian (Judaism Lite) scam was foisted on humanity in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So, if there is a health danger from 5G it would seem to be at the margins of a respective provider's coverage area, where the field devices' transmitters will necessarily need to ramp to higher power levels.
This would only be from a "consensus science" point of view, which is concerned about heating effects.

For a review of the scientific studies that have raised concerns about health effects, here's a good resource:

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/

Scanning through some of the material, I was intrigued by a paper about effects of microwaves on insects. And another paper claiming that millimeter waves are absorbed preferentially in sweat ducts in the skin. And some survey-type studies that show various biological effects in humans and animals, at relatively low signal levels. The data isn't limited to just test tubes as I said above.

There's plenty to read here, and ponder the significance of the various effects reported. Maybe there's more to it than just statistical errors & confirmation bias.

I feel it's a respectable choice, to minimize one's exposure to microwaves and millimeter waves as much as possible. And when it comes to public health effects, I feel we'll probably never know. Somebody dies of cancer: what's the cause? Is it microwaves, or Fukushima radiation, or second-hand smoke, or GMO food, or pesticide residues, or ...??? Nothing will be statistically demonstrable, unless there's a truly catastrophic level of risk.
 
Top