6 ms·

Ask HN: EMF Exposure from Starlink Satellites?

2 points by Podgajski 3y ago

I’m trying to understand EMF exposure from Starlink satellites. Am I right to assume that anyone within the 15 mile cell area would be exposed to EMFs if someone is using a Starlink receiver? In other words, if I had a millimeter wave meter would I be able to pick up any V/m in this 15 mile cell area? Please reference the article below. http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698#:~:text=The%20diameter%20of%20the%20cell,area%20of%20379%20square%20kilometers http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698#:~:te....

stop50 3y ago
yes.
ksaj 3y ago
Yes, in the same way you are exposed to every other cell signal that can reach you, every television station that can reach you, every radio that can reach you, every radar used to track planes in the sky, and so on. A receiver receives. Some receivers emit no emfs (and there used to be a satellite service that worked this way - received by satellite, transmitted over a landline phone.) They are still receiving though. There is literally no escaping the various waves that surround us constantly. Some people are concerned about this emf exposure, but it requires absolutely ignoring the very many other sources that you are exposed to at every second of the day you aren't hiding in a Faraday cage.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Podgajski 3y ago
  You’re seriously comparing the electromagnetic radiation from a starlink satellite to radio and television broadcasts? Like they’re the same power and the same frequency? And what if they all affect us, is adding more of them doing us any good? It’s not being able to escape them any good? I’m concerned about this exposure because it affects me in some frequencies affect me more than others. I’ve been affected from this since I was a network engineer at Cisco systems. Which I had to leave, unknowingly to me at the time, because that is when they installed Wi-Fi in the building. So this problem with Starlink is now I have literally nowhere to hide. Even in places that have no access to cell towers someone can drive within 10 miles of me turning their starlink and it’s like putting a tower right next to me.
  - controversial97 3y ago
    The RF power from Starlink satellites that hits the outside of your body when you are outside is very very tiny. It is estimated at 0.000000294 watts per square meter. That amount of energy is much smaller than the 1000 watts per square meter of terahertz radiation, sunlight, that would hit you when stand outside in your swimming trunks on a bright cloudless summers day. If you climb on the roof of a building and stand ten feet from a cellphone base station antenna there might be a few watts per square meter hitting your body. It is not uncommon for a microwave oven to leak a couple of watts. In a typical town the power level from starlink satellites is weaker than TV stations and 88-108MHz FM stations by a factor of at least tens of thousands.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      > It is estimated at 0.000000294 watts per square meter. Please show math or reference. > That amount of energy is much smaller than the 1000 watts per square meter of terahertz radiation, sunlight, that would hit you when stand outside in your swimming trunks on a bright cloudless summers day. Sunlight is not polarized, radiation, millimeter wave radiation from stink is polarized radiation. Big difference. Also, we did not evolve with anthropomorphic millimeter wave radiation yet. We evolved with the sun. Another big difference. > If you climb on the roof of a building and stand ten feet from a cellphone base station antenna there might be a few watts per square meter hitting your body. Do I have to show you the FCC references that say this is dangerous? Even more so with 5G cell towers? https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-frequency-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-fr...
      - controversial97 3y ago
        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quick-analysis-starlink-link-budget-potential-emf-david-witkowski https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quick-analysis-starlink-link-... I don't think that polarization makes any practical difference to how hazardous non-ionizing radiation is. Please show a reference to back up your claim. How do you think polarization makes any difference if a ten-millionth of a watt at 12GHz hits your skin? In the example of standing ten feet from a cellphone base station, I point to IEEE C95.1-2019 which specifies a maximum of 2watts per square meter (below 6GHz) which does not worry me at all. Here is another figure for you: The total power of the cosmic background radiation across 1 to 200GHz or so is 0.000003 watts per square meter At the earths surface, the total power of the cosmic background radiation is higher than the power level of the starlink downlinks! http://bostonastronomy.net/Power.html http://bostonastronomy.net/Power.html

avidiax 3y ago

15 nanowatts received at the dish. https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-does-a-Starlink-satellite-emit-in-terms-of-actual-communications-signals-How-much-of-that-power-reaches-an-individual-terminal-on-the-ground-e-g-microwatts https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-does-a-Starlink-satelli...

Podgajski 3y ago
Yes that’s at the dish but I’m wondering the 15 miles around the dish which I have confirmed from someone who is knowledged on the subject that it does transmit that same power over 15 mi.². So essentially it’s exposing me to five bars of 5G millimeter wave radiation over 15 mi.² does that sound right?
- ksaj 3y ago
  Make up your mind. You keep saying one thing, then the other. People have proven over and over again that the radiation from the satellites is too low to be a danger to you at this distance, and the same goes for the terminals, which are what you are on about this time. Literally all points have been discussed in this thread. None of it is risky unless you are literally sleeping on the antennae. The risk from ALL parts of the communication is very, very low. How many times and ways do you need to be shown this? You even ignored my initial comment hours ago about old radio towers. Those were measured in megawatts. Modern digital delivery doesn't need nearly the bandwidth, which is why it is safer than what you are worrying about. Even old children's walkie talkies expose you to more radiation. At a distance, analog fades out and the sound or image suffers. Digital is crystal clear right down until you can't differentiate the digital signal from the noise anymore. No noise is added because it is so easy to ensure a correct digital signal, versus analog that has no error correction and audibly/visually suffers from static and other interference from distance. You're trying very hard to keep this thread going, but it's proven over and over again here that your worries are unfounded.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    In my original question I directly asked “ I’m trying to understand EMF exposure from Starlink satellites. Am I right to assume that anyone within the 15 mile cell area would be exposed to EMFs if someone is using a Starlink receiver?” I’m not changing anything you are misunderstanding. The phased beam form is directed in area That’s an area of 15 mi.². And a hexagon. I showed you the map and I showed you the link. You keep saying it’s too weak but two weak compared to what.? there are zero study showing at safety for people with different genetics. I don’t care what measurement term you use I care about the effect. It’s like saying a drop of cyanide is only a drop. I’m not trying to keep the thread going. Your answers are nonsensical or you’re just misunderstanding what I’m pointing out. These are being discussed constantly in scientific circles and they’re not answered. But you will come here with, some either knowledge of physics or some propaganda given by cell phone companies and think you know everything and that’s frustrating. I’m not even saying that I know 100% that these things affect me but your comparisons are illogical. And that’s why I’m keeping going .
    - ksaj 3y ago
      Do a study on your special DNA to see why it is so different than normal DNA from everything that has DNA. That's the only way to get to the end of this, apparently.