Your homes wifi router typically has a 5 gigahertz frequency band. Is this shit being overhyped?

Gotta retrofit your house like a SCIF.

5G does not mean 5GHz, it means "Fifth generation".

As far as frequency, the 5G test network used a 15 GHz frequency band, which is higher and shorter range than current 3G/4G cellular frequencies that top out at around 2.6 GHz, i.e. 2600 MHz LTE Band 7.

5G operates from 20-80GHz. The G in 5 G is generation. Every G before was about 2.4GHz. Please do your research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5409921/Residents-enduring-stillbirths-street-lamps.html

IEEE Standard C95.1 determines levels of radiation with a 2-40x safety factor that people can be exposed to without any long-term damage, and the 5G network passes these tests.

5G isn't gonna give you any side effects because all commercial products have to confirm to these standards. I have two conference presentations on this stuff, and can confidently say 5G isn't hurting anybody

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but of course TPTB is going to cover there arses in one way or another. You're basically saying "Not to worry, TPTB has got our backs!", which is probably the weakest possible argument in a conspiracy sub.

An IEEE standard is developed by a group of engineers, not the TPTB. Unless every electromagnetic textbook we grew up on is wrong (a.k.a Maxwell's equations and calculus are lies) and the TPTB knows real physics, then the IEEE standard is valid.

Conversely, if Maxwell's equations were wrong then all wireless communications wouldn't work as they've governed by Maxwell's wave equations. Or is the TPTB sneaking into every phone manufacturer's warehouse and putting 'deal' antennae in the phones while hiding their secret mathematics?

I am a theoretical physicist (or currently studying to be one at least), you need not convince me of the validity of science. All I am saying is that others may not be equally swayed by your arguments.

Ah, well hopefully my second comment did the trick then

You throw in Maxwell's equations but the issue is that the iot 5g shit being churned out doesntACTUALLY conform to its own specs😂

Consumer electronics are not rad hard space certified ICs or Fujitsu mainframes with EMC designed enclosures. Theyre garbage that "just works"(sometimes) and microwaves you in the process.

Has to do with the fact that the shitty iot garbage coming out of china doesnt match those standards. The safety standards not being followed is the issue. You should really know better and not feign ignorance, unless youre getting paid.

Ignorance would be going "hurdur bad manufacturing processes" when you have no idea how they would actually affect the EM wave emitted by the antennae. The EM wave is a function of the antennae size and current delivered to the antennae.

So are Chinese hiding state-of-the-art chips that can deliver 2-40x the power of our laboratory ones on the same chipset? Or is it possible you really don't know what you're talking about and just are creating a narrative?

As someone who knows about EDA and semiconductor verification, i am saying he is wrong.

A lot of test methodologies are just reused with no consideration for the synergestic effects of new tech interacting in ways that arent predicted by old models.

LED street lamps and in home lighting are a perfect example of a dangerous and massive health damaging, less efficient, supposedly high tech scam that is passed off as "beneficial". 5G is no different.

Could you please submit info on LED in /r/electromagnetics? We have a few articles on chronodisruption and LED producing dirty electricity. The sub needs more info on LED. Thank you.

Yeah ill whip something up on their negative health effects today

Thanks.

Its an incomplete standarx that basically looks at whether or not the RF source causes damaging heating. It doesnt take into account many of the effects that these RF sources will actually have on people or animals.

There's 34 pages with over 100 per-reviewed references on people/animals beginning on page 34. Jesus dude just stop you literally have been right 0 times so far lmao

Yes and perhaps you should look up the way its written. They look at heating and shock dangers of RF exposure, and do not even consider many of the adverse effects to be adverse effects because they dont constitute physical damage to the tissue via heating or electrostimulation. It does nothing to regulate the other health effects that these RF cause, because it doesnt even require testing for them in order for devices to be acceptably safe under the standard.

You seem to be unable to grasp the idea that something can cause cumulative damage. Just because the RF source doesnt burn you or shock you, doesnt mean that it has no health effects. How do you not get this?

You really believe that? You obviously have no clue about manufactured products vs verification prototypes.

In the real world, 5G(like most consumer grade bullshit electronics) will not perform anything like the lab tests which are set up to give the desired result show.

So tell me what about the manufacturing process can magically increase battery capacity or significantly increase the current driving the antenna? Shitty manufacturing processing typically add more losses into electronic circuits and therefore reduce the radiation compared to the laboratory tests.

So please tell me Mister "real world electronics expert, how is that antenna getting 10x more current but the same battery lifetime? I'll wait

Nice strawman. Not even close to what i am stating.

I am talking about EMF output and EMI being higher than stated under real world usage, because outdated models are used during EDA phases. This is similar to the IC reliability due to aging problems that smaller process nodes are currently having. The old EDA(and EMC) modeling and validation tools dont always work on new nodes.

Again, you're just ignorant. EMC and EMI testing are tests to determine the effects of radiation on other electrical equipment, not the human body.

The standard I linked which you obviously haven't read sets procedures for SAR testing, which is how electromagnetic radiation effects the human body. Please just stop while you're only a little in your own grave

😂 such condescending words but apparently you cant read. I know what they are.

The reason studying EMC sheds light on this subject has nothing to do with testing the effects of radiation on the body.

Yes, that is a separate field and has different procedures... which have thus far demonstrated that 5G will cause cataracts, neurological problems, skin problems, kill or damage wildlife, cause DNA damage despite it being microwave and not ionizing radiation.

But the reason you need to know about EMC is that it reveals the difference between the kind of shit electronics and IoT devices that consumers use and stuff thats used in settings where interference is actually an issue for mission or safety critical systems.

yes, that is a separate field and has different procedures... which have thus far demonstrated that 5G will cause cataracts, neurological problems, skin problems, kill or damage wildlife, cause DNA damage despite it being microwave and not ionizing radiation.

Yea, I'd like you to link those studies. The standard I leak has several peer-reviewed sources that say you're wrong, so I'd love some proof that you're not spouting nonsense.

But the reason you need to know about EMC is that it reveals the difference between the kind of shit electronics and IoT devices that consumers use and stuff thats used in settings where interference is actually an issue for mission or safety critical systems.

Signal injection on conductors/semicondux ctors and constructive/destructive interference in the propagating wave (EMC/EMI) has different modeling & experimental methods than testing for fluctuations of action potentials and induced heating of poorly- conducting human cells/tissue (SAR). Unless these 'shit/consumer electronics' you keep mindlessly droning on about are outputting 2-40x more current to the 5G antenna in the same package, meaning those shit electronics are actually extremely advanced, the fact they're more succestible to interference has absolutely 0 effect on human safety because the antenna is by far the largest radiation source in regards to human safety.

Outdated testing methodologies dont give a complete enough picture of the danger. Plus data dredging can make anything look safe, when in reality its not.

Can you find me what is outdated about 2nd-order finite-conductor FEM modeling used in the standard to confirm results measured in DAISY 2 & DAISY 3 testing? (which BTW is used in pretty much every commercial eoctrostatic, magneto static, and electromagnetic application). You keep repeating 'outdated testing methodologies' but if you can't actually answer what they are, you just sound like an entry-level test engineer mindlessly applying E&M theory

Read through these articles and the studies they cite. Its not hard to google things for someone as smart as you, is it?

https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5409921/Residents-enduring-stillbirths-street-lamps.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html

https://www.defendershield.com/health-risks-5g-mobile-network-internet-of-things/  http://www.cellphonecancer.com/the-looming-health-risks-of-5g-technology/

When it comes to old testing methods being insufficient on new process nodes there's quite a lot of info out there if you care to look.

https://semiengineering.com/chip-aging-accelerates/

They have lots of articles on the subject of advanced process nodes and the issues that come along with them.

Read through these articles and the studies they cite. Its not hard to google things for someone as smart as you, is it?

Yea, and looks like you didn't dive into any of these 'sources' because their assumptions & test setups differ greatly, for example here's just the first source:

The setup is based on the HP-8510C VNA for which an HP-83558A millimetre wave module and an HP-83623 sweep oscillator were used as the source So a test from a 20-dBm source fed through a wave-guide concentrated on human tissue 100 mm away shows you can heat up sweat glands just enough to break the IEEE limits... well sure, but in the real world the inverse-square law exists and the air is not a waveguide... so nothing in this test implies the new 5Q antennaes 10m+ away from people is gonna break C95.1 limits. HORRIBLE CHOICE OF SOURCE!

They may be missing clocks or there is extra jitter. Or there is dielectric breakdown. And anytime something breaks down, there is an avalanche of new things you have to worry about. A lot of aging models advanced in an era where electronics were used sporadically. Now chips are running all the time. Inside of a chip, blocks are heating up, so aging is accelerated. From that you get all types of weird phenomena. A lot of companies have not revised their aging models, either. They assumed these devices would last three to four years, but they may fail sooner. And given that design margins from the beginning can be flimsy, aging can throw them off.”

Yea, "effect" in the article you listed has 0 probability of increasing the current to the antenna by a factor of 2-40 and the models used for SAR testing don't have the flaws like the models in the source you linked, so the radiation the human body gets is unaffected. So your 4th attempt at going 'hurdur shit electronics' as a argument why the radiation will be much higher still is an utter failure, care to try a 5th or are you gonna finally read the IEEE standard? (rhetorical: of course you're not, you've already died on you hill)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law Sitting right next to a cell site on a light pole will microwave you a lot more than being half a mile away from one high up on a tower.

You mean the one that says for a current/voltage applied to an identical source the radiation decreased proportional to fourth power for for emissions? Yea I've heard of it, but you do realize the power to the light poles are gonna be insanely lower than the power going to these antenna towers right? You also do realize that currently the radiation from your cell phone antenna is 10-20x closer to the Standard C95.1 limits compared to that from the tower, right? (Again rhetorical: because your argument is based on you not understanding this)

TLDR You're not intelligent enough to realize the incorrect assumptions every source you have linked makes when attempting to apply the results to the issue at hand e.g. SAR testing. I have pointed out these errors in detail, so I'm gonna end this convo and hope we have this discussion in the real world in front of subject-matter experts (going to any of the IEEE power or magnetic conferences per chance? no? shocker!) so you get laughed at and maybe change your opinions

Oh so you cherry pick one of the tests and that invalidates them all? And while obviously the air is not a waveguide, one specific RF source cant be expected to represent every 5G transmitter, of which there will be tons of different models since theyre going to be so ubiquitous.

I love how youre like "TLDR youre not intelligent enough to realize" then claim to have examined the fault in all the test setups when you literally mentioned one... because it used a waveguide.

The EDA article was an example of the general principle of outdated test methods giving incorrect results. You could also look at the replicability crisis or data dredging for a similar problem.

I hope you arent actually suggesting that the implication was that the EDA testing was directly related to the radiation issue... if you couldnt see that its an analogous problem for illustrative purposes and not directly related, i wouldnt go making claims about anyone else's intelligence.

Oh so you cherry pick one of the tests and that invalidates them all? And while obviously the air is not a waveguide, one specific RF source cant be expected to represent every 5G transmitter, of which there will be tons of different models since theyre going to be so ubiquitous.

I picked the first one which is the logical thing to do, which was link to a blog by the way not the study itself, and read through it. Yes it's possible this one is the only source that has minimal parallels to what real 5G systems will be, but so far I have zero reason to give you benefit of the doubt that the other resources are any better. A technical paper takes a while to read through and digest, so I'm not gonna spend another 10-15 minutes per source since you obviously didn't. Yes no test setup is going to encapsulate every 5G network because they aren't all the same, but none of them are using waveguides and the subject is never gonna be that close to the source so this is a bad reference

I love how youre like "TLDR youre not intelligent enough to realize" then claim to have examined the fault in all the test setups when you literally mentioned one... because it used a waveguide.

Because so far every argument you have had was based on incorrect assumptions due to an ignorance of the IEEE C95.1 standard and SAR testing in general. At this point you've been proven wrong so many times over, it's your job to tell me why any of the other setups are valid and have derived actually fields radiated from the 5G networks you are so worried about.

The EDA article was an example of the general principle of outdated test methods giving incorrect results. You could also look at the replicability crisis or data dredging for a similar problem.

You mean more principles/issues that have no effect on the SAR values this whole conversation is about? I've blatantly asked you what is wrong with the testing and modeling methods in regard to SAR measurements, and you keep coming up with generic issues that exist in EMI/EMC without realizing those issues don't exist in the SAR modeling/testing methods.

I hope you arent actually suggesting that the implication was that the EDA testing was directly related to the radiation issue... if you couldnt see that its an analogous problem for illustrative purposes and not directly related, i wouldnt go making claims about anyone else's intelligence

As long as you keep spouting the same generic claims that don't apply here and creating illustrations that don't apply here, I will question your intelligence. Not all E&M modeling and testing methodologies are obsolete/flawed just because the ones the EMC/EMI communities' are, and the fact you haven't realized this after ~5 comments makes your intelligence level pretty obvious

Its not just applicable to EMC. Its applicable to all fields of engineering, medicine, scientific research of any kind and building complex systems be it a new semiconductor node or a network of RF transmitters that have never been used in applications like this.

You can sit there saying that the standards are being adhered to until you're blue in the face, but you sound like Zuckerberg testifying before senators and congressmen "of course we respect your privacy and have a million page terms of service to weasel word our way around the reality that we dont".

If you bothered to read any of the other articles or sources, you'd find that researchers from around the world understand that the safety of 5G is extremely questionable. Especially with reports of a significant increase of health problems once the(according to you) harmless 5G transmitters go up in an area. How do you accout for the widespread negative health effects in the area that only started immediately after 5G was trialed?

Heres a hint, because the standard you keep quoting only really looks at two effects: heating and electrostimulation, and the standard was actually relaxed in 2005 i believe.

Why only look at those two things when determining if a RF source is safe? It doesnt take into account the other damage modes caused by electromagnetic radiation in the areas of the spectrum being used for 5G: like the non heating or electrostimulation effects of increased DNA breaks, the physiological changes to the immune and nervous system noted in the various studies you refuse to look at. The standards basically look at whether a device will immediately cause damage via heating or shocking you. That is a terribly incomplete look at the effects of RF in these frequency ranges on biological systems.

That was the point of bringing up the complexities of EDA at smaller nodes: unexpected effects in the real world testing because the models for verification of the design were incomplete.

If you look at the research that says that 5G and cell phone radiation is more dangerous than people are led to believe, its because they look at other damage modes than heating and shocking. Microwaves increas BBB permeability, but that doesmt get taken into account when assessing a devices safety. Same thing with its effects on DNA. Its the flawed assumption that the standard is sufficiently comprehensive to assess the safety of these radiation sources, when it doesnt even bother with any of the detrimental biological effects that would be cumulative.

Show me in IEEE C95.1 where it does take these biological effects into account.

You didn't link to the IEEE Standard.

Standards are based on thermal radiation not nonthermal radiation. Standards are based on not having skin contact. Not holding the phone next to the ear, inside a bra, inside a pocket. See the Safety Standards wikis in /r/electromagnetics.

5G has adverse health effects. Papers are in the Millimeter:5G wiki in /r/electromagnetics.

No because there isn't that much power in the signal.

Did you know your own body poisons itself with radiation? Better watch out

Did you know thats bullshit? ROS from cellular respiration isnt radiation. Google what a free radical is please.

Do you know what potassium is or what

Oh so potassium is now plutonium or microwaving me? Please grasp the basics of chemistry and radioactivity before making such an absurd statement. You think significant damage can be done by that compared to high power RF or actual significant ionizing radiation sources? Oh no radioactive isotopes. Theyre not all dangerous lol

Thats my point. People hear radiation and go nuts. 5G "radiation" isn't "high power rf"

It is when its 20-80GHz from beamforming antennae on every light pole. Go do some research. 5G is not to 4G what 4G was to 3G.

It has already demonstrated its detrimental health effects.

You are correct they aren't the same, but they still aren't like sitting right next to a microwave emitter lol

With 5g you are. Theyre putting them on residential light poles. They have to because the frequencies used for 5g basically require LOS.

Visible light is 400 THz to 800 THz. Granted with overlapping signals it might be a issue but I don't think so.

That isnt how radiation works. Specific frequencies/wavelengths interact with different compounds and physical(biological) structures in different ways.

There are areas of the EM spectrum that are harmless, beneficial, detrimental, and it has to do with how specific molecules and structures absorb, attenuate or resonate with specific frequencies.

5G encompasses some extremely biologically actjve and detrimental frequencies of RF from 20-80GHz. Electromagnetic radiation in that range has health effects from neurological problems to heart and immune system problems.

5G is the first communications standard of its type. Thus far everything for cell phones has been below 5GHz.

It is so easily absorbed by water(flesh) that it often requires beam forming and micro cell sites.

You know your stuff, but it isn't hard to back up your claims with 20 minutes reading and searching pubmed. Get to it!

Work for AT&T. Not worried at all. Radio waves are around you all the time

Mini cells operating from 20-80GHzhave never been around.

Nice to know your company brainwashed you. Go study Electromagnetic Compliance standards before making uninformed statements please.

Oh you're 24 foot tall in the beam path?

Oh just read your user name, I get it now.

You think the mini cells have a 24 foot high ceiling and below it they put out 0W/m² of radiation or what?

No, the whole point of mini cell sites is to blanket an area with 5G coverage and 24 feet is a lot closer to your body than the current cell transmitters, which are on rather tall cell towers that put the point sources of radiation quite far from humans.

And 5G mini cells will use beamforming antennas so they WILL be aiming directly at you from tens of feet away at 20--80GHz instead of being a kilometer or more away.

Do you think employees of haliburton think fracking is safe and necessary too?

I remember reading up on EMF shielding paint but I dunno

EMF shielding paint will not shield the millimeter waves of 5G. 5G is in the microwave and millimeter range.

What does shield millimeter waves are carbon, charcoal, especially wet charcoal, very thick aluminum panels, sea water and wet clay. Papers are in these shielding wikis in /r/electromagnetics.

What does NOT shield millimeter waves: metal faraday cage, aluminum foil, mylar, aluminum mesh, copper, steel, tin, etc.

very thick aluminum panels meaning 3 thousands of an inch or more, there is a dip in reflectivity around 10GHz for aluminum sheets but the attenuation/reflection goes back up

https://i.imgur.com/7pEWFTV.png

the problem with aluminum shielding at higher frequencies is that any gap that is a fraction of a millimeter in size will let a lot of signal through.

carbon based paints are very expensive compared to 8 thou sheets.

I'm basing my paper off this stuff ill post here eventually

Thank you very much for the details. I'm looking forward to your paper.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/electromagnetics] [Shielding: Millimeter] Shielding 5G Radiation

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

You throw in Maxwell's equations but the issue is that the iot 5g shit being churned out doesntACTUALLY conform to its own specs😂

Consumer electronics are not rad hard space certified ICs or Fujitsu mainframes with EMC designed enclosures. Theyre garbage that "just works"(sometimes) and microwaves you in the process.

With 5g you are. Theyre putting them on residential light poles. They have to because the frequencies used for 5g basically require LOS.

very thick aluminum panels meaning 3 thousands of an inch or more, there is a dip in reflectivity around 10GHz for aluminum sheets but the attenuation/reflection goes back up

https://i.imgur.com/7pEWFTV.png

the problem with aluminum shielding at higher frequencies is that any gap that is a fraction of a millimeter in size will let a lot of signal through.

carbon based paints are very expensive compared to 8 thou sheets.

I'm basing my paper off this stuff ill post here eventually