I worry about what it will do to people who have a lot of aluminum in their brains from vaccines. Foil in the microwave?

That's a pretty fair assessment. 4g http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/first-study-on-short-term-effects-of-4glte-cell-phone-radiation-shows-affects-on-brain-activity/ 5g https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/

5g will bake our brains. Check out Barrie Trower on YouTube, he worked with British military on microwave weapons https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY

Were getting nationwide 5G not because the people want it, but because the military absolutely needs it to support their data-hungry next generation weapon systems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/89z5rd/were_going_to_get_flooded_with_5g_wireless_not/

You say it’s coming fast but that’s “fast” in technology terms. Many places they’re trying to install 5G, the tenants don’t want it installed. Additionally, there really aren’t consumer products on the market that are usable on 5G so ignore all of the commercials talking about it. Other commenters here mention the Military needing it, which does make some sense. Additionally, I find the weaponization aspect interesting and plausible. Anyone who is familiar with telecom knows this stuff isn’t fully tested which is the scariest part imo. But the telecom industry is too big to let any government regulation slow them down.

Verizon already rolled it out in several cities and there is more to come

Verizon will launch wireless residential broadband services in three to five US markets in 2018, marking a first application of 5G wireless, the company announced Wednesday.

Rather than copper or fiber cables, these broadband services will use radio signals to provide customers with faster wireless speeds, according to a press release. While 5G remains in its early stages, as the technology evolves, customers will be able to access bandwidth for broadband, mobile, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, as well as 3D and virtual reality (VR) applications.

Sacramento, CA will be the site of Verizon's first commercial launch, in the second half of 2018. Information on the launch in other markets will be provided later, according to Verizon.

This isn't Verizon's first foray into 5G: The telecom company trialed 5G residential applications in 11 cities in 2017, including Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Seattle, and Sacramento. "The commercial launch is based on customer experience and on Verizon's confidence in new technology powered by millimeter-wave spectrum," according to the release.

The market opportunity for the first 5G residential broadband services is about 30 million homes nationwide, Verizon estimated.

"This is a landmark announcement for customers and investors who have been waiting for the 5G future to become a reality," Hans Vestberg, Verizon CTO and president of global networks, said in the release. "We appreciate our strong ecosystem partners for their passion and technological support in helping us drive forward with 5G industry standards, for both fixed and mobile applications. The targeted initial launches we are announcing today will provide a strong framework for accelerating 5G's future deployment on the global standards."

5G is expected to make a major impact on the US economy, and the way we live and work. Residential services from Verizon and others could be a major benefit for telecommuters and people who work from home, providing faster, more consistent internet speeds.

By 2035, 5G will enable more than $12 trillion in global economic revenue, and support 22 million jobs worldwide driven by the digitalization of industries such as transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing, according to Ronan Dunne, executive vice president and group president of Verizon Wireless.

By 2023, 5G will cover more than 20% of the global population, with 1 billion 5G subscriptions for enhanced mobile broadband deployed by that time, according to a recent report from Ericsson

Here's how dangerous it is, in Canada they have a test town of 8500 (Morden) they offered them 5G- free internet, they only have to pay a $400 hook up charge. To get people to over look the health issues around it they give them FREE INTERNET. 90% of the town accepted. Vaccines are free and look at the damage they do, now 5G will be frying what's left of your brain and they sell it with free internet.

That’s not how science works.

Said no one.

Wow, nothing written in the comments here is correct. 5g won't microwave your brain. Microwave ovens don't microwave your brain even if you stand in front of them, and they run at 700-1000 watts. Most cellphones now transmit at 0.25 watts. For the mathematically challenged, a phone is roughly 2800 times less powerful than a microwave. Cell phones are literally harmless, even if you press them up against your ear. And power radiates according to the inverse square law, meaning that the power at a distance r from the source is 1/(r²⁾ of the power at the source.

But whatever, facts and science doesn't matter, right? Just keep mowing your lawns without sunscreen because the sun is all natural and harmless.

This person is speaking truth. The military may want 5g... for the same reasons everyone does: it supports much higher throughput for data and more reliable connections. The idea that you would use the towers to somehow point them at a target to cause damage probably doesn't even work. Even if it did, that would be one of the most expensive and ineffective ways to harass a target.

As far as pointing at a target, well that's exactly what 5G does. It uses a technology called "beamforming". That's the whole idea behind the high throughput. They point the microwave beam at the cell phone. So yes, it does work, and it's being used.

As far as harassing a person or causing damage - well, once you have beamforming technology, it's just a matter of increasing the transmission power. Not saying they are planning to do it, but I just wanted to point out that it's indeed quite technically possible to do.

Beamforming is a thing, yes, but it isn't just a technology limited to 5g. Using it as an actual way to cause damage is ridiculous and was my point. There is cheaper, easier, and less detectable ways to harass someone.

Small Cells 5G Systems like the Ericsson AR5121 have a power output of 1 to 6 Watts, which are most common used.

Even a 5G site with massive MIMO has a theoretical power out of only 200 Watts.

And it gets reduce by the formula as the other persons stated.

It's not that simple. There's also a thing called antenna directivity, which basically states how focused the beam is, and the more focused the beam, the less the power diminishes with distance.

So if you have a focused beam, then the point at which the power is halved will be much further away, than if you had an unfocused beam.

Since 5G uses highly focused beams, it basically means the transmitted power travels much further. I haven't seen any calculations (although I'm sure they exist), on what the actual power output towards the user will be.

I'm pretty sure the industry is fudging the numbers here, because this topic is highly complex. They use high gain, high directivity antennas, and then they pulse the transmitted power. Then they average the pulses, and tell the public "oh yeah, see on average it's only xx mW at the receiver", while in reality each single pulse may be over any real safety limits.

The wind power industry uses exactly the same tactics. It's falsifying safety limits with statistical trickery. That's why people get sick from these things, and that's why you cannot trust anything that comes out of their mouths.

They have done zero biological safety testing on 5G. Zero. That's how much they care about that topic. That should tell everyone something important.

The cell sites don't release as much as you think and 5g sites release less than 4g (that's the point). Furthermore, you'll notice cell signal strnegth right under a tower is not as good as you'd think it would be, and that's because the purpose of a tower is to cover the area with relatively the same power. So using some antenna techniques, very little RF is directed below the tower, most of it is directed out.

microwaves are shielded

Science does matter, very much, and the science says microwaves are harmful way way below current guidelines. Here's 67 studies ranked by their biological effects in relation to the received power density:

https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png

Those who research molecular biology and effects on electromagnetic radiation on cells, already know that even fields as low as 0.2 mT (microtestla) will disrupt the ATP energy production of the cell.

2800 times less powerful than a microwave is not enough, when the FCC guidelines allow for over 1000 mW per square meter, and we have biological effects at 0.0001 mW per square meter. If you do the simple math, that's a difference in power density of 10 million times.

This is what the science says, and science has known about these effects for well over 50 years now. What the industry WANTS you to know about the science, that is another thing.

Please look carefully at the graph you posted. The arrangement of studies along the x-axis is not in chronological order, but is deceptively arranged to show a curve that rises, knowing full wee that the casual non-expert reader will assume that the x-axis is related to time and that the problem is getting worse.

What the graph actually shows is wildly deviating results. For example, Beylaev 2005 (over on the right, shows an SI somewhere around 1000mW/m2, (or 1 watt). But Buchner 2012 (way on the left) shows SI of 0.1mW. The y-axis is logarithmic, so the 2012 dots is 10,000 times lower.

And what do these red dots even mean? Are they the amount of RF before any effect at all on SI is detected? Is it the amount considered to be safe? Why are the 2012 number and the 2005 number so wildly different?

What are you talking about? Your behavior is like cognitive dissonance 101. I show you disturbing evidence of harm, and the first thing you do is try your utmost to dismiss it to prevent yourself from dealing with reality.

The arrangement is in order of power density. Not chronological. It should be obvious. The graph shows: "these studies have found these types of effects at these power levels".

There is nothing deceptive here, other than your illogical comments and the efforts of the wireless industry to bury the truth.

Those studies are extracted from the 2012 meta study of over 1800 research papers on biological harm from wireless radiation. You can read the study conclusions here:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

I don't know what to tell you. Anyone who spends a little bit of extra effort to find out the real facts, will find overwhelming evidence of harm from all electromagnetic radiation. Not just wireless, but all non-natural EMF has biological consequences. It's completely obvious once you stop reading the glossy industry sales pitches.

Here's an example from the World Health Organization in 1973, after the symposium in Warsaw on electromagnetic radiation:

"Biologic effects and health hazards of microwave radiation, 1973":
https://twitter.com/ChronicExposure/status/1005766884216725504

You can keep pushing your head into the sand, meanwhile we have a group of people who are taking this issue seriously, and looking for solutions. Which group are you going to be part of?

Zbufferz, if I ever saw cognitive dissonance, I would put you in the textbook as an example. The graph shows disturbing evidence of harm, but the first thing you do is try and dismiss it to prevent yourself from dealing with reality.

The arrangement is in order of power density. Not chronological. It should be obvious. The graph shows: "these studies have found these types of effects at these power levels". The year of study is not relevant, the power density and observed effects are.

There is nothing deceptive here, other than your illogical comments and the efforts of the wireless industry to bury these facts.

Those studies are extracted from the 2012 meta study of over 1800 research papers on biological harm from wireless radiation. You can read the study conclusions here:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/

I don't know what to tell you. Anyone who spends a little bit of extra effort to find out the real facts, will find overwhelming evidence of harm from all electromagnetic radiation. Not just wireless, but all non-natural EMF has biological consequences. It's completely obvious once you stop reading the glossy industry sales pitches.

Here's an example from the World Health Organization in 1973, after the symposium in Warsaw on EMR:

"Biologic effects and health hazards of microwave radiation, 1973": https://twitter.com/ChronicExposure/status/1005766884216725504

You can keep pushing your head into the sand, meanwhile we have a group of people who are taking this issue seriously, and looking for solutions. Which group are you going to be part of?

I can tell you something mildly interesting from my industy.

There is a company that has done a bunch of R&D on solar powered very high altitude UAV's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinetiq_Zephyr

So, they built a bird that can stay up for a long time and be very high altitude... kind of like a satellite only it would be an order of magnitude less expensive to get it in the air.

Rumor is they got the bright idea to use these drones to provide 5G everywhere . This may not be a big deal to people in developed countries who have access to good internet but its a huge deal in places like south America/Africa that don't. Its also worth noting that equatorial areas are idea for a solar drone.

So that's pretty interesting in it self, but it gets more interesting when you find out that they are getting a massive amount of funding from a huge Japanese bank. Why would a bank want to control a tech like this that is supposedly mainly useful for providing internet services in underdeveloped areas of the world?

Not only that but the possibles for satellite "like" capabilities in a potentially secretive and somewhat disposable package are a little scary to think about.

So that's my little insider info for the sub. Nothing to exciting but something to think about.

I'm gonna assume this technology was available to the military a while ago which makes it even scarier. Hadnt even considered a solar drone damn.

Developed in Israel but will not be implemented in Israel.

It always annoys me people make statements like this without at least one link. I know I can google "Israel 5g" but I don't trust Google to provide me with the link compelling enough to make someone state something like you have

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-5g-mobile-revolution-designed-in-israel-1001207153

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090916/5g-technology-which-country-will-be-first-adapt.asp