24 ms·

> It comes down to a persons personal risk. [..] Wear a hat and sunscreen. What's the "hat and sunscreen" protection against millimeter wave cellphone towers,

> It comes down to a persons personal risk. [..] Wear a hat and sunscreen. What's the "hat and sunscreen" protection against millimeter wave cellphone towers, that someone else installed on their private property near you? I'm not yet convinced the risks exist. But conceptually if there was a danger, there's no "personal risk" argument. We're blanketing the whole area around a tower with millimeter wave/5G, a person cannot opt out.

pjc50 7y ago
Mostly the protection is the inverse square law. Provided you're not holding the device next to your head the exposure is tiny.
- ss2003 7y ago
  Or in your pocket. Where do you carry your phone?
- SigmundA 7y ago
  Cell modems are around 300 milliwatts transmit, it would be like holding a LED light up to your head that flickers on and off when sending data. Extremely tiny exposure of non ionizing radiation, you probably get more from the monitor your looking at right now.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  5G requires far more towers than 4G or 3G before it, and if biological damage is possible accumulated risk when measured over an entire population can still be problematic. Ultimately this isn't simply an issue of "personal risk." If there's no danger, there's no danger. But if there is and you live in a major city simply not owning a cellular device may only lower your exposure.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    None of what you say is false, but without numbers it's impossible to compare to other sources of danger. And like ionising radiation, you need to compare to background levels. How does it compare to, say, the sun? Or EMC emissions from motor vehicles? (Yes, they're not zero: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/44876/mira_04-0845046.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/44876/m... )
  - ajsnigrutin 7y ago
    No it doesnt. It can work with more on 60GHz, or it can work with the same amount on the same frequencies as 4G. And in either way - more towers, less power per tower.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  That would only apply to the phone transmitting, wouldn't it? The RX is broadcast from the nearest tower, and 5G uses beam-forming. If your device (or another device near you) is receiving from the tower then there's not much of a way to avoid getting exposure.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Not much way to avoid getting exposure to electro-magnetic waves? You make it sound like EM waves aren’t being emitted or reflected by everything in the universe short of a black hole. And cell phone EM exposure levels for someone who isn’t carrying a phone - hopefully this person knows better than to walk outside, or stand near a window!
    - MertsA 7y ago
      Black holes still emit hawking radiation.
londons_explore 7y ago
A hat and sunscreen does offer some protection against millimeter wave radiation - the had will block some (smallish but non-zero) percentage of the radiation, as will the sunscreen as long as you apply a thick layer.
k__ 7y ago
As far as I know the exposure is a bit like a bell curve. Right besides the tower you're in a blind spot, then it gets more intense as you move out of the blind spot and then it gets lower as you move further away.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  5G requires more towers, closer to their end users. To quote the article: > 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.
  - xorfish 7y ago
    Isn't the amount of radiation you receive from the towers tiny in comparison to the radiation of your phone?
    - cakeizzalie 7y ago
      The radiation you get from pussy is tinier than your dick. Think about it. No harm done.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Haha, it’s not massive inputs and outputs. It’s multiple input/output antenna arrays.
  - ajsnigrutin 7y ago
    No it wont require, it will be able to work on the same frequencies as 4G does. It can use more towers at higher frequencies in really really crowded areas or industrial setups, but those work at lower power outputs, and penetrate the body less (due to higher frequencies).
  - landcoctos 7y ago
    My City has them or they are under permitting for "towers" (of 30 feet or so) on nearly every block. Some right next to residences, daycares, schools, offices, etc.
SigmundA 7y ago
The sun is a 1000 watts per square meter exposure at your body, cell towers might be 100w if you hugged the antenna then inverse square law to distance to about 0.00000001 watt with a strong signal. Your cell device is a millwatts transmitter, equivalent to an LED light shining on you. You don't need hat and sunscreen for street lights or flashlights nor would you need it for cellular power levels, orders of magnitude difference in exposure.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  This is a tangent, but it's crazy that we've built a communications network that relies on basically LEDs shining out of our pockets (with less interference from the sun, but still).
  - swiley 7y ago
    Except our pockets (unless you wear tinfoil pants) and many other materials are transparent at those wavelengths which makes it a lot less crazy.
    - StavrosK 7y ago
      You don't think making an antenna that can detect an LED shining in a flat miles away is crazy because pockets are transparent?
      - swiley 7y ago
        No. Amateur radio operators have done it, and it’s not difficult to imagine how one would.
        StavrosK 7y ago
        Indeed, nothing is difficult to imagine how to do if the method is common knowledge.
        burnte 7y ago
mortdeus 7y ago
There is such a thing as RF shielding that uses copper or other conductive metals in a grated screen as a means to block out radio frequencies. While the application is typically used as a means to create telecommunication dead zones, i could easily see somebody capitalizing on this kind of health scare by putting copper shielding in say clothing like a hoodie. I think when comparing this to the sun there are lots of things worth considering from many different angles. 1. To say this threat is nothing compared to the risks we face from the sun, completely ignores the fact that we have millions of years of evolutionary exposure to sunlight and because of that fact the immune system has become way more acclimated to dealing with it's carcinogenic properties. Of course, our immune systems aren't perfect but considering how much more exposure we all are to sunlight than any other carcinogen, if we didn't have a strong evolutionary tolerance to it; melanoma would obviously be the #1 leading cause of cancer. But it's not. Now in hindsight, what we don't have evolutionary genetic tolerance for is microwave radiation. While i'm not in anyway an expert in biology or the physics of light, I do have enough insight to know that we should never underestimate the possible negative outcome of any potential problem when it's still just a mathematical theory we're playing with rather than a reality of nature we're all dying from. I mean, we underestimate and miscalculate these kind of things all the time and it's kind of counter productive that the answer to the question of "When will we learn to stop doing this?" is always "Once, we underestimate and miscalculate, discover our error and become smarter because of it"... 2. The bigger issue this has when compared to the sun is the fact that all of us can agree while there is such a thing as getting too much sun. However, there isn't such a thing as internet that is too fast. We essentially all want to be able to download terabytes at the speed of light so that we can one day be on Mars and be able to seamlessly stream Netflix from Earth while were up there. And while of course there is a speed of light limitation of like i believe 8 minutes, that doesn't mean people aren't going to complain why they cant instantly stream from there. This is what we need to understand about this issue. There is no limitation to how much radio wave radiation we want when we are thinking of that radiation in the language of the internet, as "Content". 3. When it comes to protecting ourselves from this, if it actually does turn out to be a substantial problem. All the solutions suck. The radio wave EM shielding for example protects you from the potentially harmful waves. But it also creates like I said, a deadzone. So putting it in your walls of your home, because you don't want you and your entire family constantly being exposed to the cell tower that might only be a football field length away from your house (as the one near my house is), also means you can't receive or make calls to and from your cell phone. This is a deal breaker for most people, and as far as i'm aware RF shielding isn't like sunscreen where it blocks out most of the harmful light while letting in the some you want. It's an all or nothing solution. Which is why I think putting the RF shield in clothing like a hoodie would be an interesting venture idea. The shielding protects your body, while your phone is still outside of the shielded area. (although this obviously doesn't protect your face and i don't think RF shielded masks are going to find a market other than antifa) And another reason why the implications of this would really suck, is that it means were stuck with crappy wires and the companies who own the rights to pumping internet to and fro over them. I am mostly looking forward to 5G because I view it as the primary means we are going to get ourselves out of the era of shitty slow internet and greedy cable company overlords who wouldn't know how to disrupt something if a tv with rainbow bars on the screen hit them in the face.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
I have a wallet with RFID protection. Could we make cell phone cases and/or glass with shielding that blocks 5G signals, limiting exposure in part of the phone that wouldn't be need to be sending and receiving signals? Basically have a naked antenna and shielded everything else. I am not a mobile phone hardware wizard :)

pjc50 7y ago

Mostly the protection is the inverse square law. Provided you're not holding the device next to your head the exposure is tiny.

ss2003 7y ago
Or in your pocket. Where do you carry your phone?
SigmundA 7y ago
Cell modems are around 300 milliwatts transmit, it would be like holding a LED light up to your head that flickers on and off when sending data. Extremely tiny exposure of non ionizing radiation, you probably get more from the monitor your looking at right now.
Someone1234 7y ago
5G requires far more towers than 4G or 3G before it, and if biological damage is possible accumulated risk when measured over an entire population can still be problematic. Ultimately this isn't simply an issue of "personal risk." If there's no danger, there's no danger. But if there is and you live in a major city simply not owning a cellular device may only lower your exposure.
- pjc50 7y ago
  None of what you say is false, but without numbers it's impossible to compare to other sources of danger. And like ionising radiation, you need to compare to background levels. How does it compare to, say, the sun? Or EMC emissions from motor vehicles? (Yes, they're not zero: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/44876/mira_04-0845046.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/44876/m... )
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  No it doesnt. It can work with more on 60GHz, or it can work with the same amount on the same frequencies as 4G. And in either way - more towers, less power per tower.
kevingadd 7y ago
That would only apply to the phone transmitting, wouldn't it? The RX is broadcast from the nearest tower, and 5G uses beam-forming. If your device (or another device near you) is receiving from the tower then there's not much of a way to avoid getting exposure.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Not much way to avoid getting exposure to electro-magnetic waves? You make it sound like EM waves aren’t being emitted or reflected by everything in the universe short of a black hole. And cell phone EM exposure levels for someone who isn’t carrying a phone - hopefully this person knows better than to walk outside, or stand near a window!
  - MertsA 7y ago
    Black holes still emit hawking radiation.

londons_explore 7y ago

A hat and sunscreen does offer some protection against millimeter wave radiation - the had will block some (smallish but non-zero) percentage of the radiation, as will the sunscreen as long as you apply a thick layer.

k__ 7y ago

As far as I know the exposure is a bit like a bell curve. Right besides the tower you're in a blind spot, then it gets more intense as you move out of the blind spot and then it gets lower as you move further away.

Someone1234 7y ago
5G requires more towers, closer to their end users. To quote the article: > 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.
- xorfish 7y ago
  Isn't the amount of radiation you receive from the towers tiny in comparison to the radiation of your phone?
  - cakeizzalie 7y ago
    The radiation you get from pussy is tinier than your dick. Think about it. No harm done.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Haha, it’s not massive inputs and outputs. It’s multiple input/output antenna arrays.
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  No it wont require, it will be able to work on the same frequencies as 4G does. It can use more towers at higher frequencies in really really crowded areas or industrial setups, but those work at lower power outputs, and penetrate the body less (due to higher frequencies).
- landcoctos 7y ago
  My City has them or they are under permitting for "towers" (of 30 feet or so) on nearly every block. Some right next to residences, daycares, schools, offices, etc.

SigmundA 7y ago

The sun is a 1000 watts per square meter exposure at your body, cell towers might be 100w if you hugged the antenna then inverse square law to distance to about 0.00000001 watt with a strong signal. Your cell device is a millwatts transmitter, equivalent to an LED light shining on you. You don't need hat and sunscreen for street lights or flashlights nor would you need it for cellular power levels, orders of magnitude difference in exposure.

StavrosK 7y ago
This is a tangent, but it's crazy that we've built a communications network that relies on basically LEDs shining out of our pockets (with less interference from the sun, but still).
- swiley 7y ago
  Except our pockets (unless you wear tinfoil pants) and many other materials are transparent at those wavelengths which makes it a lot less crazy.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    You don't think making an antenna that can detect an LED shining in a flat miles away is crazy because pockets are transparent?
    - swiley 7y ago
      No. Amateur radio operators have done it, and it’s not difficult to imagine how one would.
      - StavrosK 7y ago
        Indeed, nothing is difficult to imagine how to do if the method is common knowledge.
      - burnte 7y ago

mortdeus 7y ago

There is such a thing as RF shielding that uses copper or other conductive metals in a grated screen as a means to block out radio frequencies. While the application is typically used as a means to create telecommunication dead zones, i could easily see somebody capitalizing on this kind of health scare by putting copper shielding in say clothing like a hoodie. I think when comparing this to the sun there are lots of things worth considering from many different angles. 1. To say this threat is nothing compared to the risks we face from the sun, completely ignores the fact that we have millions of years of evolutionary exposure to sunlight and because of that fact the immune system has become way more acclimated to dealing with it's carcinogenic properties. Of course, our immune systems aren't perfect but considering how much more exposure we all are to sunlight than any other carcinogen, if we didn't have a strong evolutionary tolerance to it; melanoma would obviously be the #1 leading cause of cancer. But it's not. Now in hindsight, what we don't have evolutionary genetic tolerance for is microwave radiation. While i'm not in anyway an expert in biology or the physics of light, I do have enough insight to know that we should never underestimate the possible negative outcome of any potential problem when it's still just a mathematical theory we're playing with rather than a reality of nature we're all dying from. I mean, we underestimate and miscalculate these kind of things all the time and it's kind of counter productive that the answer to the question of "When will we learn to stop doing this?" is always "Once, we underestimate and miscalculate, discover our error and become smarter because of it"... 2. The bigger issue this has when compared to the sun is the fact that all of us can agree while there is such a thing as getting too much sun. However, there isn't such a thing as internet that is too fast. We essentially all want to be able to download terabytes at the speed of light so that we can one day be on Mars and be able to seamlessly stream Netflix from Earth while were up there. And while of course there is a speed of light limitation of like i believe 8 minutes, that doesn't mean people aren't going to complain why they cant instantly stream from there. This is what we need to understand about this issue. There is no limitation to how much radio wave radiation we want when we are thinking of that radiation in the language of the internet, as "Content". 3. When it comes to protecting ourselves from this, if it actually does turn out to be a substantial problem. All the solutions suck. The radio wave EM shielding for example protects you from the potentially harmful waves. But it also creates like I said, a deadzone. So putting it in your walls of your home, because you don't want you and your entire family constantly being exposed to the cell tower that might only be a football field length away from your house (as the one near my house is), also means you can't receive or make calls to and from your cell phone. This is a deal breaker for most people, and as far as i'm aware RF shielding isn't like sunscreen where it blocks out most of the harmful light while letting in the some you want. It's an all or nothing solution. Which is why I think putting the RF shield in clothing like a hoodie would be an interesting venture idea. The shielding protects your body, while your phone is still outside of the shielded area. (although this obviously doesn't protect your face and i don't think RF shielded masks are going to find a market other than antifa) And another reason why the implications of this would really suck, is that it means were stuck with crappy wires and the companies who own the rights to pumping internet to and fro over them. I am mostly looking forward to 5G because I view it as the primary means we are going to get ourselves out of the era of shitty slow internet and greedy cable company overlords who wouldn't know how to disrupt something if a tv with rainbow bars on the screen hit them in the face.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

I have a wallet with RFID protection. Could we make cell phone cases and/or glass with shielding that blocks 5G signals, limiting exposure in part of the phone that wouldn't be need to be sending and receiving signals? Basically have a naked antenna and shielded everything else. I am not a mobile phone hardware wizard :)