4 ms·

> 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

> 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
- Podgajski 3y ago
  You could’ve looked it up yourself, you would learn more if you did. And as I said, before natural radiation is different from anthropological EMF radiation. It’s post and it’s polarized. You can’t compare it to anything natural. While natural unpolarised EMF/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#:~:text=While%20natural%20unpolarised%20EMF%2FEMR,understanding%20of%20the%20biological%20phenomena https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#:~:text=While%20na.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562392/ Thus, in addition to polarization and coherence, the existence of ELFs is a common feature of almost all human-made EMFs. The present study reviews the DNA damage and related effects induced by human-made EMFs. The ion forced-oscillation mechanism for irregular gating of voltage-gated ion channels on cell membranes by polarized/coherent EMFs is extensively described. Dysfunction of ion channels disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations, which determine the cell's electrochemical balance and homeostasis. The present study shows how this can result in DNA damage through reactive oxygen species/free radical overproduction.
  - ksaj 3y ago
    Light reflecting off a lake is polarized. That's why polarized filters remove the glare in lake photos, etc. All reflected light is polarized (or at least partly polarized, since some surfaces are quite rough, and except when reflected by a mirror, although the rough surface part still applies). It's why we can see Haidinger's Brush on a clear sunny day.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      All right, this is proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Light coming off of a lake is not polarized. That’s why we wear polarizing glasses to get rid of the glare. They take the unpolarized light and polarize it by removing everything but the horizontal rays. So they’re doing two things they were reducing the amount of light you’re getting and they’re also polarizing the light reducing glare. https://www.visionease.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SunRxTechnicalEducation511.pdf https://www.visionease.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SunRxT... Next, Why don’t you read this paper and then tell me if they’re the same. People that are smarter than both of us put together, are talking about these things in a scientific way, not in a way that they think will win an argument. Besides, we evolved with sunlight, and we did not evolve with man-made EMF. I’m not saying I know this matters, but I’m saying you can’t compare them and say they’re the same. https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fields-the-importance-of-polarization-2/#:~:text=Artificially%20polarized%20EMFs%20(as%20opposed,planes%20parallel%20to%20their%20polarization https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fie....
      - Aloisius 3y ago
        > They take the unpolarized light and polarize it by removing everything but the horizontal rays. Those horizontal rays are polarized light. That's why it's "horizontal." Unpolarized light is really just randomly polarized light - the polarization changes moment to moment randomly. When light strikes a non-metallic reflective surface at around 56° (Brewster's angle), the light components which are polarized perpendicular to the surface get scattered or absorbed, while those polarized parallel to the surface get reflected, so light reflecting at an angle off of water is linearly polarized in a horizontal direction.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  And I want to add that it may not worry you, but genetics seems to play a role in electromagnetic hyper sensitivity. It may have a little effect on you, unless there’s a much higher increase in power, but other people may be more sensitive. It’s like you saying I should not be worried about peanuts when I obviously have a peanut allergy and you don’t. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/
  - ksaj 3y ago
    It's like saying you should not be worried about your peanut allergy if the peanuts are 10km away. Your exposure is not at a level that your body will react negatively to it.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      No, you’re saying that, I’m not saying that you’re saying that. I am saying that if I can pick up a cell signal or if I could pick up a satellite beam from a star satellite then it’s like having a peanut in my mouth.
      - ksaj 3y ago
        Well, you'll be safe at either the North or South Pole, then. The only places on the planet that don't have Starlink flying over (yet).
- ksaj 3y ago
  Correct. By definition, polarized waves of any kind are less "potent" since their contact surface is greatly diminished. It's the difference between the line of radius*2 and a filled circle, the radius squared times pi. Big difference, and easily observable: Lasing is the best example of demonstrating why this is: Polarized light has to be significantly stronger to pass through the partial mirror than the regular light that said mirror blocks when generating laser. The non-polarized light keeps bouncing between the full mirror and the partial mirror until it is strong enough to pass through the partial mirror. The constant reflection eventually polarizes all the light, but that should be obvious just by visualization. Gas lasers work differently, which is why they don't polarize. I think OP is trolling, because he's expecting lessons on absolutely everything about how the world works around him in order to be convinced that his initial claim is so very wrong.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    You actually just showed that turning unpolarized light into polarized light makes it more powerful by turning it into a laser. And you think I’m trolling? Just like a laser, The beam from the satellite is concentrated and directed at an area that’s only 15 mi.². If it was spread out like the suns rays were, there would not be enough concentrated power for the stink satellite to pick up the signal. So the EMS from the satellite are acting just like a, The beam from the satellite is concentrated and directed at a area that’s only 15 mi.². If it was spread out like the suns rays were, there would not be enough concentrated power for the starlink satellite to pick up the signal. So the EMS from the satellite are acting just like a powerful laser. What do you think of phased array antenna does? It focuses the energy from the satellite into a single beam, you know, just like a laser! https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b02029 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b02029 Read this paper I’ll post the link again. This explains the difference between polarize and unpolarized EMF. https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fields-the-importance-of-polarization-2/#:~:text=Artificially%20polarized%20EMFs%20(as%20opposed,planes%20parallel%20to%20their%20polarization https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fie....
    - ksaj 3y ago
ksaj 3y ago
How about this one: "This analysis demonstrates that the SpaceX CP terminal is not a radiation hazard because the terminal does not exceed the MPE limit of 1 mW/cm2 averaged over a thirty-minute period." https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-20190211-00151/1616679 https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-20190211-00151/1616679
- Podgajski 3y ago
  I’m not talking about the terminal, I’m talking about the satellite that’s acting as a cell tower.
  - ksaj 3y ago
    Then, just like the cell tower examples people have already given you, proximity is very much a differentiator between safe and not safe. We're really far away from those satellites. And people have already shown how low the radiation from those satellites actually is by the time it reaches you. It is measured in nanowatts. EDIT: Also, in another comment that I called out (later in this very thread), you said the exact opposite. What part are you talking about? Make up your mind. This thread has thoroughly disproven your concerns for every part of the signal chain involved, and yet you keep flipping what part you are talking about, disregarding that all parts have been discussed now. I think you are trolling. Wrap yourself in tinfoil and move on.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Actually, I’m measuring it volts per micro. But just because it’s a microwave doesn’t mean it does not have non-thermal effects. This is the question with EHS. And this is what’s being studied, the non-thermal biological effects. And if the power of the satellite is so low, how can it carry so much data. That’s what you’re not understanding. if it can’t reach the dish it can’t reach me. Those aren’t the waves I’m talking about. As I showed earlier the broadcast cone for the satellite is 15 m² in a hexagon.
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 .

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

Podgajski 3y ago
You could’ve looked it up yourself, you would learn more if you did. And as I said, before natural radiation is different from anthropological EMF radiation. It’s post and it’s polarized. You can’t compare it to anything natural. While natural unpolarised EMF/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#:~:text=While%20natural%20unpolarised%20EMF%2FEMR,understanding%20of%20the%20biological%20phenomena https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#:~:text=While%20na.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562392/ Thus, in addition to polarization and coherence, the existence of ELFs is a common feature of almost all human-made EMFs. The present study reviews the DNA damage and related effects induced by human-made EMFs. The ion forced-oscillation mechanism for irregular gating of voltage-gated ion channels on cell membranes by polarized/coherent EMFs is extensively described. Dysfunction of ion channels disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations, which determine the cell's electrochemical balance and homeostasis. The present study shows how this can result in DNA damage through reactive oxygen species/free radical overproduction.
- ksaj 3y ago
  Light reflecting off a lake is polarized. That's why polarized filters remove the glare in lake photos, etc. All reflected light is polarized (or at least partly polarized, since some surfaces are quite rough, and except when reflected by a mirror, although the rough surface part still applies). It's why we can see Haidinger's Brush on a clear sunny day.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    All right, this is proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Light coming off of a lake is not polarized. That’s why we wear polarizing glasses to get rid of the glare. They take the unpolarized light and polarize it by removing everything but the horizontal rays. So they’re doing two things they were reducing the amount of light you’re getting and they’re also polarizing the light reducing glare. https://www.visionease.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SunRxTechnicalEducation511.pdf https://www.visionease.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SunRxT... Next, Why don’t you read this paper and then tell me if they’re the same. People that are smarter than both of us put together, are talking about these things in a scientific way, not in a way that they think will win an argument. Besides, we evolved with sunlight, and we did not evolve with man-made EMF. I’m not saying I know this matters, but I’m saying you can’t compare them and say they’re the same. https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fields-the-importance-of-polarization-2/#:~:text=Artificially%20polarized%20EMFs%20(as%20opposed,planes%20parallel%20to%20their%20polarization https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fie....
    - Aloisius 3y ago
      > They take the unpolarized light and polarize it by removing everything but the horizontal rays. Those horizontal rays are polarized light. That's why it's "horizontal." Unpolarized light is really just randomly polarized light - the polarization changes moment to moment randomly. When light strikes a non-metallic reflective surface at around 56° (Brewster's angle), the light components which are polarized perpendicular to the surface get scattered or absorbed, while those polarized parallel to the surface get reflected, so light reflecting at an angle off of water is linearly polarized in a horizontal direction.
Podgajski 3y ago
And I want to add that it may not worry you, but genetics seems to play a role in electromagnetic hyper sensitivity. It may have a little effect on you, unless there’s a much higher increase in power, but other people may be more sensitive. It’s like you saying I should not be worried about peanuts when I obviously have a peanut allergy and you don’t. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/
- ksaj 3y ago
  It's like saying you should not be worried about your peanut allergy if the peanuts are 10km away. Your exposure is not at a level that your body will react negatively to it.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    No, you’re saying that, I’m not saying that you’re saying that. I am saying that if I can pick up a cell signal or if I could pick up a satellite beam from a star satellite then it’s like having a peanut in my mouth.
    - ksaj 3y ago
      Well, you'll be safe at either the North or South Pole, then. The only places on the planet that don't have Starlink flying over (yet).
ksaj 3y ago
Correct. By definition, polarized waves of any kind are less "potent" since their contact surface is greatly diminished. It's the difference between the line of radius*2 and a filled circle, the radius squared times pi. Big difference, and easily observable: Lasing is the best example of demonstrating why this is: Polarized light has to be significantly stronger to pass through the partial mirror than the regular light that said mirror blocks when generating laser. The non-polarized light keeps bouncing between the full mirror and the partial mirror until it is strong enough to pass through the partial mirror. The constant reflection eventually polarizes all the light, but that should be obvious just by visualization. Gas lasers work differently, which is why they don't polarize. I think OP is trolling, because he's expecting lessons on absolutely everything about how the world works around him in order to be convinced that his initial claim is so very wrong.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  You actually just showed that turning unpolarized light into polarized light makes it more powerful by turning it into a laser. And you think I’m trolling? Just like a laser, The beam from the satellite is concentrated and directed at an area that’s only 15 mi.². If it was spread out like the suns rays were, there would not be enough concentrated power for the stink satellite to pick up the signal. So the EMS from the satellite are acting just like a, The beam from the satellite is concentrated and directed at a area that’s only 15 mi.². If it was spread out like the suns rays were, there would not be enough concentrated power for the starlink satellite to pick up the signal. So the EMS from the satellite are acting just like a powerful laser. What do you think of phased array antenna does? It focuses the energy from the satellite into a single beam, you know, just like a laser! https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b02029 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b02029 Read this paper I’ll post the link again. This explains the difference between polarize and unpolarized EMF. https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fields-the-importance-of-polarization-2/#:~:text=Artificially%20polarized%20EMFs%20(as%20opposed,planes%20parallel%20to%20their%20polarization https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fie....
  - ksaj 3y ago

ksaj 3y ago

How about this one: "This analysis demonstrates that the SpaceX CP terminal is not a radiation hazard because the terminal does not exceed the MPE limit of 1 mW/cm2 averaged over a thirty-minute period." https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-20190211-00151/1616679 https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-20190211-00151/1616679

Podgajski 3y ago
I’m not talking about the terminal, I’m talking about the satellite that’s acting as a cell tower.
- ksaj 3y ago
  Then, just like the cell tower examples people have already given you, proximity is very much a differentiator between safe and not safe. We're really far away from those satellites. And people have already shown how low the radiation from those satellites actually is by the time it reaches you. It is measured in nanowatts. EDIT: Also, in another comment that I called out (later in this very thread), you said the exact opposite. What part are you talking about? Make up your mind. This thread has thoroughly disproven your concerns for every part of the signal chain involved, and yet you keep flipping what part you are talking about, disregarding that all parts have been discussed now. I think you are trolling. Wrap yourself in tinfoil and move on.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    Actually, I’m measuring it volts per micro. But just because it’s a microwave doesn’t mean it does not have non-thermal effects. This is the question with EHS. And this is what’s being studied, the non-thermal biological effects. And if the power of the satellite is so low, how can it carry so much data. That’s what you’re not understanding. if it can’t reach the dish it can’t reach me. Those aren’t the waves I’m talking about. As I showed earlier the broadcast cone for the satellite is 15 m² in a hexagon.

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 .