3 ms·

But it would mean (pretty much by the intention of 5G) many more such devices in proximity of every inhabitant of your downtown area, right (Edit: actually, now

by krick 6y ago

But it would mean (pretty much by the intention of 5G) many more such devices in proximity of every inhabitant of your downtown area, right (Edit: actually, now that I read it, this seems to be the main point of the "appeal")? Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere, no? > the protocol Physical protocol, so it doesn't really debunk much. Different wavelengths, different modes of sending/receiving. I seriously have no idea if there is or isn't any reason to be concerned about that, and it wouldn't surprise me very much if it eventually turns out that this isn't all just crazy people mumbling. After all, there's no conclusive data and there's much more initiative to support 5G than to fight it, so if there is somebody talking sensibly about some real dangers, I expect that I wouldn't hear about them for way too long, since they would be lost in the noise. So, really, I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss any "dangers of the 5G" activists, even if they aren't saying anything very conclusive right now. I seriously don't know if there can be anything to be worried about, but I am pretty sure that anybody who could possibly conduct any studies on that, will allow only studies with "good" results. I kinda have some trust issues, when it comes to dealing with large corporations.

jiggawatts 6y ago
> Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere Which generally decreases the required RF transmit power, because of 1/r^2 scaling laws. > Physical protocol Not really. If you read through the 5G spec, it's mostly about upping everything. If before there were a few packet sizes, now there are more packet sizes for more efficient packing. If some encoding topped out at, say, QAM64, it goes to QAM1024 now, but only at short range. Most of the above was constrained by client-side silicon protocol processing, not radio technology. It's vaguely similar to H.265 vs H.264. They're not fundamentally different. The newer encoding just does... more. More block sizes, more transforms, etc... > I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss any "dangers of the 5G" activists You really should be that fast, in the same way that you are fast to dismiss Flat-Earthers. The 5G conspiracy nutjobs have zero interest in evidence, or science, or facts, or any of that stuff. > I seriously don't know if there can be anything to be worried about If you have no understanding of the technology or the physics, don't comment. Seriously. The hard-core conspiracy theorists are kept going by a surprisingly large group of ignorant people who don't know any better. Telecoms towers have been burnt to the ground. Staff have been physically assaulted. This is the same idiocy as the people attacking volunteers distributing vaccines. If you want to reduce your personal health risk from mobile data technology, then simply stop texting while driving. If you want to reduce your cancer risk from radiation, use sunscreen. But please, stop supporting the "concerned Facebook mom" group.
- krick 6y ago
  I'd seriously rather support them, than people like you: individuals, who have basically nothing to support their claims that "everything will be ok", but sincerely believe that everybody around must be a "conspiracy nutjob" and must be wrong by default. Just because I like to err on the safe side, and people like you are more dangerous for society than these nutjobs (simply by virtue of being paranoid).
  - jiggawatts 6y ago
    Don't take international flights then, you might fall off the edge of the Earth. > basically nothing to support their claims I studied physics and I read the 5G standards manual. Have any of the 5G conspiracy theorists done either? Have you?

by krick 6y ago

jiggawatts 6y ago

> Also more of closer-range towers pretty much everywhere Which generally decreases the required RF transmit power, because of 1/r^2 scaling laws. > Physical protocol Not really. If you read through the 5G spec, it's mostly about upping everything. If before there were a few packet sizes, now there are more packet sizes for more efficient packing. If some encoding topped out at, say, QAM64, it goes to QAM1024 now, but only at short range. Most of the above was constrained by client-side silicon protocol processing, not radio technology. It's vaguely similar to H.265 vs H.264. They're not fundamentally different. The newer encoding just does... more. More block sizes, more transforms, etc... > I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss any "dangers of the 5G" activists You really should be that fast, in the same way that you are fast to dismiss Flat-Earthers. The 5G conspiracy nutjobs have zero interest in evidence, or science, or facts, or any of that stuff. > I seriously don't know if there can be anything to be worried about If you have no understanding of the technology or the physics, don't comment. Seriously. The hard-core conspiracy theorists are kept going by a surprisingly large group of ignorant people who don't know any better. Telecoms towers have been burnt to the ground. Staff have been physically assaulted. This is the same idiocy as the people attacking volunteers distributing vaccines. If you want to reduce your personal health risk from mobile data technology, then simply stop texting while driving. If you want to reduce your cancer risk from radiation, use sunscreen. But please, stop supporting the "concerned Facebook mom" group.

krick 6y ago
I'd seriously rather support them, than people like you: individuals, who have basically nothing to support their claims that "everything will be ok", but sincerely believe that everybody around must be a "conspiracy nutjob" and must be wrong by default. Just because I like to err on the safe side, and people like you are more dangerous for society than these nutjobs (simply by virtue of being paranoid).
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  Don't take international flights then, you might fall off the edge of the Earth. > basically nothing to support their claims I studied physics and I read the 5G standards manual. Have any of the 5G conspiracy theorists done either? Have you?