[–] ShadowWatcher ago
I fly fpv drones, we use 5.8 gigahertz to relay video back to our headsets. I don't know of anyone who has flown over three miles away without use of a ground station, which is a highly boosted antenna for lack of better words. The point is, the range of 5G is not very far, why would they put 5G up in space? You would need another station roughly every 3 miles till the signal got to the ground. Kind of like a ladder of antennas. This is just what I have found from using it, if we could fly further than that away, trust me we would!
[–] Pollycracker ago
Brussels bans 5G. If it's not good enough for the New World Order it should not be good enough for the USA.
[–] PathogenAlpha 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Sending those satelites into orbit is an act of war.
India, Russia, China, and other countries out there will not allow those 5G units to take up stationary orbit around the planet.
We are going to see missiles being sent up into orbit to destroy those units..
[–] 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
[–] 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.
[–] 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)
[–] Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby 2 points 2 points 4 points (+4|-2) ago
There is no radio frequency that has enough energy to have biological impact. This fear of 5G is moronic.
Yeah, that school in California where 4 kids and 3 teachers got cancer from the cell tower on the top of the school were just making things up. Also the NYC firemen who reported concentration and memory problems until the towers at their stations were removed were just imagining things. Also the reports of these cell phone tower workers experiencing infertility for weeks until they ceased working at the towers were lies. Also this study in particular should be ignored
It's almost as if they do cause issues depending on the strength of the signal...
I can get people not being knowledgeable about a topic, but what I don't understand why people who have done literally no research on the topic just parrot the MSM's narrative like they're experts.
You are awash in electromagnetic radiation all the time. There has never been a time in your life that you have not been. But there are no radio or cell frequencies that are narrow enough to cause biological activity. Microwaves don't even penetrate past the surface and those only heat by quickly oscillating the polarity of the field - causing water molecules to flip back and forth.
But NONE of that is relevant to cell towers. The whole idea is preposterous and speaks to a real ignorance about what this technology is.
I am sure you can find anecdotes for everything and RT articles or nature news articles. But none of them have a plausible testable hypothesis for what these low frequency bands could do and the claims being made fly in the face of physics.
[–] WakkoWarner 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago (edited ago)
How do you prove that something is safe?
Take nuts for instance, we ate nuts for pretty much all our history, so it would be reasonable to think they are safe. Yet, in some cases, especially lately, many persons literally risk their life eating them.
So, at most, you can prove something is unsafe, or unsafe in some cases, but you can never really prove something is safe. Life is dangerous, things that are safe for me might be deadly for you. What should we do? Stop any kind of progress because we are scared that it might, somehow, hurt us?
Now, asking that some tests should be conducted before deploying 5G worldwide is reasonable. Asking the impossible, like "prove it's safe" is not.