Critical Update on Cellphone Safety

Oct 16, 2018 6 Replies

Quoted from the Manward Press..



Critical Update on Cellphone Safety By Andy Snyder, Founder


Rooster's Crow It's a victory for the free market. The new FCC commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, is working to eliminate the rules that tell networks how much and what sort of kid-friendly content they must run. The old rules don't work (obviously), and channels not affected by the rules are actually providing better, more popular content. We don't like TV, but we certainly don't like the government telling us what we can watch. It's a win for Liberty. It happened. And many folks aren't happy about it.



The technology is great. The folks who say it will change the way we work, play and do business aren't being hyperbolic.



The 5G technology Verizon just unleashed in Los Angeles is pretty wild.



It boasts web speeds that are some 100 times what we see now. An entire movie can now be downloaded in less than a second. Using the "old" technology - which is still current in most of the country - it could take 10 minutes or more.



With faster download speeds, of course, comes increased bandwidth. Tech junkies are excited by the notion that new 5G technology will allow just about anything to hook into the web and communicate.



It will open the door to all sorts of new technology.



Great. But...



Of course, the rollout in LA this month doesn't come without a few serious concerns.



One of them deals with your health... the other your Liberty.



First, your health...



If the scientific community is still deliberating whether or not traditional cellphone signals are harmful for our bodies... it will be a long time until we see a consensus on 5G signals.



In the simplest terms, this is all one very big experiment. Nobody knows the long-term effects of cellphone radiation.



But they do know the closer we are to the source of the signal, the more danger we're in.



It's why the Federal Communications Commission and major phone makers tell us to never hold our phones directly against our skin.



Yep, but we bet most readers still do it.



That's what has so many folks worried about 5G technology.


The "heavy" signal it relies on can't travel all that far. To overcome the issue, coverage providers are forced to virtually paint regions with antennas.



Get this: Right now, there are about 308,000 wireless antennas spread across the country. That's a lot. But it's nowhere close to the "exponential" growth we're seeing in places like Los Angeles.



Whereas one cell tower can provide coverage for a wide swath of land these days, experts now say that one 5G station will be needed for every dozen homes in urban areas.



That means we're about to see a lot of antennas in a lot of places.



That's problem No. 2.



There's only so much room for all of these antennas. And most of the places companies like Verizon are putting them are owned by, guess who... you.



Are You Getting Paid?



Of course, local municipalities are acting like they're the landlords and are doling out special deals. But it's really the people's real estate that they're renting.



It's stirring up quite a controversy.



And it should.



Many telecom engineers are calling it the "battle of inches." They're fighting to get their shoebox-sized antennas anywhere they can - including on light posts, telephone poles, traffic lights, etc.



Drive through LA and you'll see what we mean.



These "small cell" units will soon be ubiquitous across the American landscape. It's big money for the folks building them (sales are expected to triple by 2021). But local governments are having a tough time figuring it all out.



As usual... they're getting strong-armed.



In this case, it's Uncle Sam doing the knuckle-busting.



There's no doubt that Washington wants America to be the global leader in 5G technology. It's pushing the innovation through while pushing the free market aside.



Again, we'll turn to LA.



The city and its elected representatives should have the right to charge whatever they want for third parties to use their infrastructure, right?



The citizens paid for those streetlights, so they should be able to put any price tag they want on them.



Not according to Washington.



After Verizon and LA worked out a contract, the fine folks at the FCC made their own deal. They said local governments can charge the big boys of the telecom world no more than $270 per installation.



In other words, if Small Town, USA, wants to keep potentially dangerous



5G technology off its streets, it won't be able to do it by pricing carriers out of town.

The FCC rules eliminate virtually all of a municipality's pricing power, which has long been a chief way they've ensured things like this lean in favor of the people.



It's a huge blow to Liberty.



We have no doubt somebody is going to make a slew of money off the deal.



But we're quite worried about the price we'll pay.



This is a story to watch.



We're all guinea pigs... and that's never fun.



Be well,



Andy



Sadly, alarmist do get excited about a lot of physical effects that don't seem to do any damage to guinea pigs, or human beings either.

But it does get them lots of attention, which they do seem to crave.

Robert Baer is silly enough to play along.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yep. Plenty more wrong with the article:

  1. RF exposure for small cells is about 8 times (9dB) less than a typical cell tower. In addition, 5G will need beam steering and beam forming in order to effectively communicate, making exposure to innocent bystanders much less than a mega-tower that spews RF in chunky quadrants. Here's a spreadsheet I threw together for a proposed conventional tower in a residential neighborhood: If all 3 sectors were lit up at full power on all 4 bands, it would belch 43KW EIRP of RF. Small cells don't come anywhere near that level where the transmit power is about 5 watts maximum and the typical EIRP per panel is maybe 50 watts EIRP maximum.
  2. 5G will potentially operate on many frequency bands. Exposure, propagation, equipment, antennas, etc will be quite different for the 0.6 to 7GHz and the 24GHz and up bands. What works for the lower frequencies will probably not work for the higher frequencies, including RF exposure calculations.
  3. In most real (i.e. not contrived) situations, RF exposure from the handset is more than exposure from the cell site.
  4. Obtaining construction permits for a mega-cell site and tower is almost impossible today. Plenty of reasons that I won't go into right now. Even if it were easy, the massive amount of paperwork that the service providers need to deliver and maintain makes large cell sites a losing proposition. This is one reason why some of the cellular providers have unloaded their cell sites to tower companies. However, small cells and DAS (distributed antenna systems) are much easier obtain approval. However, that doesn't mean that municipalities are making things easy for the cell cellular companies. In the past, the cities would delay reviewing and approval of cell sites hoping that the cellular provider would either go away, or pay more money to the city for the construction permit. The delays were solved by the FCC demanding a "shot clock". The price gouging is being eliminated by a price cap on 5G deployments.
  5. Much of the discussion around cell phone exposure revolves around the presumption that RF causes brain cancer. This is the incidence of new brain cancer cases from 1975 to 2011 from the NCI (National Cancer Institute): Cell phones became ubiquitous starting in about 1990. If there was cause and effect relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer, it should have appeared as an increase in cancer incidence. Nope. The graph is almost flat with a slight decrease (due to the introduction of PET scans which provided earlier detection).

More later, if anyone wants more. I'm otto time today.

Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

They should be more concerned with what vaping is doing to them.

This should produce a more up to date graph to 2015:

Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Who is they? In what way is vaping harmful?

Well, lets see if various oral and respiratory cancers are on the rise: Looks like lung and bronchial cancers are on the decline but cancer of the tongue and tonsils have been on the increase since 2000. All the other parts of the mouth are either stable, or on the decline: Since only the tongue is affected, I would guess(tm) that it's not due to vaping. However, since it started only 10 years after cell phone use became epidemic, cancer of the tongue might be due to talking too much on cell phones.

Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

No insults, unlike never mind.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required