finlo Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Normal ones or cancerous. Technical name for the masts Dilli. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, finlo said: 7 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Normal ones or cancerous. Technical name for the masts Dilli. I kinda knew that. It was a silly post that I thought I had pulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 Its quite strange to see so many negative remarks from a technology which is supposed to enhance our future, but who's future is actually being enhanced? If the radiation is known to be harmful, then one wonders how the US Govt empowers and forces this through without proper safety checks? Is it about money, control or something else? It's like opening a can of worms as the more you look into it, the more you see connections to areas which wasn't known previously. Now I'm always up for a laugh and a leg pull but when you start looking through the videos, then you have to wonder as to whats going on and thankful that the information and harm about such technology is out there for all to see if looked for. This isn't another flat earth conspiracy but these towers are being put up to form a grid in the US at an astonishing rate. Look into it guys and the question you need to ask is if its safe and would you have a tower on your lamppost outside your house or shop or school etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 hours ago, finlo said: he higher the frequency the shorter the range So the shorter the range the less the power density? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted July 15, 2018 Share Posted July 15, 2018 10 hours ago, the stinking enigma said: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths Aw !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 On 7/13/2018 at 6:47 AM, ballaughbiker said: So the shorter the range the less the power density? pass, but finlo is correct on the range issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 He is but trying to suss out why it is so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 16 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: He is but trying to suss out why it is so. Imagine a 10m piece of string, now shape it in long slow waves (long wave/ low frequency ) it will still reach almost the full 10m now do a series of closely spaced up and down waves (short wave/high frequency ) and it may only stretch 0.5m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 11 hours ago, finlo said: Imagine a 10m piece of string, now shape it in long slow waves (long wave/ low frequency ) it will still reach almost the full 10m now do a series of closely spaced up and down waves (short wave/high frequency ) and it may only stretch 0.5m. That explains the relationship between wavelength and frequency. Light (way high frequency) comes all the way from the stars - and higher frequency radio is used to communicate across the vast distances of space. The main issue here* with higher frequencies / shorter wavelengths is that they are more easily blocked / absorbed by buildings and trees. A shorter wavelength can be refracted / blocked by a smaller object. But if there is line of sight the range is going to be roughly the same or potentially better (under typical atmospheric conditions) at the same power up until the point at which curvature of the earth begins to be an issue. Straight from the top of the lamp post into your brain. Many more cells will be needed with 5G - assuming that 5G adopts frequencies in the millimeter band (higher than microwave). But it isn't yet clear that it will. 5G in the UK, initially at least, seems set to use allocations around similar frequencies to those already in use. According to this: https://5g.co.uk/guides/5g-frequencies-in-the-uk-what-you-need-to-know/ * ignoring ionospheric reflection because it is not relevant here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 It's going to take a hell of a lot of cash for a small island to have 5G across the whole surface area, factoring in the fact that some parts can't even get 4G now and the requirement for 5G is for shorter uninterrupted distances. I haven't looked but have Manx Telecom come out with any ideas on how they plan to tackle this? I think we might see a roaring trade in mature trees being purchased and planted if they go ahead with the UK model of one on top of every lamp post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Quote Straight from the top of the lamp post into your brain. Unless there are trees or a wall in the way? Or skull? If leaves on a tree attenuate or block this frequency at the power radiated, I'd wager the skull will too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 13 hours ago, ballaughbiker said: Unless there are trees or a wall in the way? Or skull? If leaves on a tree attenuate or block this frequency at the power radiated, I'd wager the skull will too? I think the access to the brain was a bit of a flippant comment. The waves do permeate the skin though down to cellular level and as obviously your body is a constant matrix of electrical signals they will disrupt the normal function of the body, creating free radicals. Whichever way you look at it, it isn't going to be beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Lxxx said: I think the access to the brain was a bit of a flippant comment. From what I have read - if they do end up going with frequencies in the (currently experimental) millimetre wavebands then trees and buildings probably will significantly attenuate any signal. Which comes back to the reasons why so many base stations would be necessary. But it isn't clear at this stage that any version of 5G we are likely to see soon will be using anything other than frequencies around about those currently being used for 4g/LTE. The main point is that we simply don't need an internet of things. It's just more potential network risk - stuff to be inevitably hacked. And it will inevitably quickly create more waste - in the never ending drive to upgrade. Our kitchen appliances and furniture don't need to be connected. Anything based on technology has an limited lifespan. And yet the best of all classics are invariably timeless. Devices which don't connect to the internet will be what people with taste prefer. In the same way as privacy and opting-out has becoming the gold standard today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted July 18, 2018 Share Posted July 18, 2018 5 hours ago, pongo said: From what I have read - if they do end up going with frequencies in the (currently experimental) millimetre wavebands then trees and buildings probably will significantly attenuate any signal. Which comes back to the reasons why so many base stations would be necessary. But it isn't clear at this stage that any version of 5G we are likely to see soon will be using anything other than frequencies around about those currently being used for 4g/LTE. The main point is that we simply don't need an internet of things. It's just more potential network risk - stuff to be inevitably hacked. And it will inevitably quickly create more waste - in the never ending drive to upgrade. Our kitchen appliances and furniture don't need to be connected. Anything based on technology has an limited lifespan. And yet the best of all classics are invariably timeless. Devices which don't connect to the internet will be what people with taste prefer. In the same way as privacy and opting-out has becoming the gold standard today. I agree completely. Although I would imagine the thought process is that most urban conurbations would eventually become ‘smart cities’ with everything linked. One giant open air microwave oven. Which is why Sheffield Council for example are cutting down trees in and around the city centre at an alarming rate. It won’t be a perfect system and I would imagine the frequencies may be adjusted depending on the area and it’s ability to effectively blanket the area with unobstructed base stations. Or tap into the much publicised smart meter rollout, if the technology for that is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.