[–] qwop 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Lack of studies is not a criteria for safety. Studies are done to determine safety limits. If there are no studies, there are no valid safety limits. If there are no valid safety limits, you're flying blind.
The industry is doing no testing to determine 5G safety limits, and the studies they've used for older generation systems are outdated and not done within the 5G frequency spectrum. But it's ok. We'll just trust they know what they're doing.
[–] BlueDrache 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Nor is lack of studies a qualification for it being dangerous.
Show me a reputable study from something other than a fly-by-night bullshit blog conspiritard website and I'll consider it.
Until then, shut up.
[–] DishingShitLikeA 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
Next up... Asbestos! The wonder mineral!
[–] CarpenterforChrist 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
How will this possibly work? It is my understanding that 5g operates on microwaves. Microwaves are only good for short distances. Maybe 5g isn't what they are telling us it is.
[–] VOALTRON 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You are correct. From what I have read, satellite communications using C band (TV broadcast station, Mhz waves) transmissions will be used with the satellites.
Satellites will be used to assist 5G networks, but they're not going to be using 5G frequencies. https://www.rcrwireless.com/20180108/5g/the-role-of-satellites-in-delivering-5g-tag17-tag99
[–] qwop 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
The SpaceX project is called Starlink, and it will use the Ku and Ka bands, which are in the mm wave length. These bands have already been used for satellite communication previously, so it does work. The atmosphere only attenuates the signals, it does not block them. So it's just a matter of transmission power and antenna gain, and the signal can be made to pass through the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)
[–] CarpenterforChrist 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
So the signal will "slow down" to get from tower to satellite and vice versa but "speed up" again from tower to tower. Call me skeptical, but the only advantages to this will be for AI and not humans.
[–] Diggernicks 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago (edited ago)
If it IS safe whats the problem?
Where's the studies that show it isn't safe?
[–] qwop 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago (edited ago)
Diggernicks I know you like to troll these posts, but I hope you'll never be in charge of setting safety standards for anything. A lack of studies you see, is not proof of safety. This should be basic common sense.
What we have instead are numerous papers showing harm from frequencies in the 3G and 4G ranges. Therefore there is in fact no reason to assume 5G is any safer. Safety has to be tested, that us how safety standards are created. Just putting your head in the sand is not a valid strategy for this.
[–] GapingAnus ago
lack of studies you see, is not proof of safety
Nor is a lack of studies proof of danger. Where are the studies that indicate danger for the frequency ranges and relevant power levels. Do note the inverse square law wrt. cell towers and especially sats.
We have known for decades to be a bit careful with anything above the 70cm band but transmission power matters hugely here. So where are the studies for the wattages that will be relevant?
[–] MaunaLoona 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
Not safe by design. It's a weapon.