The issue with microwave as energy source lies not that walking by a SMART METER on one's house or on top of a school building will cause health damage----the issue is the need for TRILLIONS of small ANTENNAE saturating our environment in order to capture and relay enough microwave to fulfill the goals of 5G. We are moving from a minimum of exposure to microwave to a saturation and continuous exposure and THAT is what will create public health crises.
Videos like this do a great job educating as to the development towards 5G---it does little to educate how almost all this expanded capacity will be needed for SMART CITIES operations and global online corporations-----WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% will not be the ones benefiting from all these expanded capacities---we will be the ones forced to live with-----walk through-----work around all these microwave-induced electrical force fields. As the video shows the need for antennae in moving these waves is huge ----think looking at windmills or oil rigs are unsightly. This is the FRACKING OF SPECTRUM.
What we are already seeing is this-----now global 1% are creating new businesses and products designed to protect citizens from the effects of 5G electrical force fields. THIS IS CRAZY STUFF from a global 1% we all know are SOCIOPATHS.
The video does a good job of showing timeline of these 1G - 5G systems---it was Clinton-era when we started to see how harmful these goals were to become.
Today we will discuss what ionizing vs non-ionizing means when talking about the longer wavelength of microwaves and shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet and gamma. Global 1% are selling the idea that microwaves are NON-IONIZING and therefor not hazardous while many citizens point to the fact WE HAVE NO DATA OR RESEARCH being done to prove this given the current goals.
The Dangers Of 5G – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned
The USA is currently leading the way on 5G. At the June 2016 press conference where the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) head Tom Wheeler announced the opening up of low, mid and high spectrum’s. There was no mention of health effects whatsoever. But the dangers are real.
Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:
DNA single and double strand breaks
disruption of cell metabolism
increased blood brain barrier permeability
disruption to brain glucose metabolism
generation of stress proteins
Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen.
More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.
But where does 5G fit into all this?
Given that 5G is set to utilize frequencies above and below existing frequency bands 5G sits in the middle of all this. But the tendency (it varies from country to country) is for 5G to utilize the higher frequency bands. Which brings it’s own particular concerns. Here is my review of the studies done to date – 11 reasons to be concerned.
#1 – A Denser Soup of Electrosmog
We’re going to be bombarded by really high frequencies at low, short-range intensities creating a yet more complicated denser soup of electrosmog – as this diagram shows.
Source: Latest on 5G Spectrum – EMFields Ltd.
To work with the higher range MMW in 5G, the antennas required are smaller. Some experts are talking about as small as 3mm by 3mm. The low intensity is for efficiency and to deal with signal disruption from natural and man-made obstacles.
#2 – Effects on the Skin
The biggest concern is how these new wavelengths will affect the skin. The human body has between two million to four million sweat ducts. Dr. Ben-Ishai of Hebrew University, Israel explains that our sweat ducts act like “an array of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths,” meaning that we become more conductive. A recent New York study which experimented with 60GHz waves stated that “the analyses of penetration depth show that more than 90% of the transmitted power is absorbed in the epidermis and dermis layer.”
The effects of MMWs as studied by Dr. Yael Stein of Hebrew University is said to also cause humans physical pain as our nociceptors flare up in recognition of the wave as a damaging stimuli. So we’re looking at possibilities of many skin diseases and cancer as well as physical pain to our skin.
#3 – Effects on the Eyes
A 1994 study found that low level millimeter microwave radiation produced lens opacity in rats, which is linked to the production of cataracts.
An experiment conducted by the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University found that 60GHz “millimeter-wave antennas can cause thermal injuries of varying types of levels. The thermal effects induced by millimeterwaves can apparently penetrate below the surface of the eye.”
A 2003 Chinese study has also found damage to the lens epithelial cells of rabbits after 8 hours of exposure to microwave radiation and a 2009 study conducted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Pakistan conclude that EMFs emitted by a mobile phone cause derangement of chicken embryo retinal differentiation.
#4 – Effects On The Heart
A 1992 Russian study found that frequencies in the range 53-78GHz (that which 5G proposes to use) impacted the heart rate variability (an indicator of stress) in rats. Another Russian study on frogs who’s skin was exposed to MMWs found heart rate changes (arrhythmias).
#5 – Immune System Effects
A 2002 Russian study examined the effects of 42HGz microwave radiation exposure on the blood of healthy mice. It was concluded that “the whole-body exposure of healthy mice to low-intensity EHF EMR has a profound effect on the indices of nonspecific immunity”.
#6 – Effects on Cell Growth Rates
A 2016 Armenian study observed MMWs at low intensity, mirroring the future environment brought about by 5G. Their study conducted on E-coli and other bacteria stated that the waves had depressed their growth as well as “changing properties and activity” of the cells. The concern is that it would do the same to human cells.
#7 – Effects on Bacteria Resistance
The very same Armenian study also suggested that MMWs effects are mainly on water, cell plasma membrane and genome too. They had found that MMW’s interaction with bacteria altered their sensitivity to “different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics.” More specifically, the combination of MMW and antibiotics showed that it may be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
This groundbreaking finding could have a magnum effect on the health of human beings as the bandwidth is rolled out nationwide. The concern is that we develop a lower resistance to bacteria as our cells become more vulnerable – and we become more vulnerable.
#8 – Effects on Plant Health
One of the features of 5G is that the MMW is particularly susceptible to being absorbed by plants and rain. Humans and animals alike consume plants as a food source. The effects MMW has on plants could leave us with food that’s not safe to consume.
Think GMOs on steroids. The water that falls from the sky onto these plants will also be irradiated. A 2010 study on aspen seedlings showed that the exposure to radiofrequencies led to the leaves showing necrosis symptoms.
Another Armenian study found that MMWs of low intensity “invoke(s) peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes of wheat shoots.” Peroxidase is a stress protein existing in plants. Indications are that 5G will be particularly harmful to plants – perhaps more so than to humans.
#9 – Effects on the Atmosphere and Depletion of Fossil Fuels
Implementation of the 5G global wireless network requires the launching of rockets to deploy satellites for 5G. These satellites have a short lifespan which would require a lot more deployment than what we’re currently seeing. A new type of hydrocarbon rocket engine expected to power a fleet of suborbital rockets would emit black carbon which “could cause potentially significant changes in the global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone and temperature” according to a 2010 Californian study. Solid state rocket exhaust contains chlorine which also destroys the ozone.
The effects on the ozone are thought to be worse than current day CFC exposure.
Google’s Project Loon is said to bring Internet to rural and hard-to-access areas by using helium balloons. But these balloons only have a 10-month lifespan. We’re looking at a lot of helium being used here, more than what we can possibly have on Earth?
#10 – Disruption of the Natural Ecosystem
Since the year 2000, there have been reports of birds abandoning their nests as well as health issues like “plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death,” says researcher Alfonso Balmori. Bird species that are affected by these low levels, non-ionizing microwave radiation are the House Sparrows, Rock Doves, White Storks, Collared Doves and Magpies, among others.
But it’s not just the birds. The declining bee population is also said to be linked to this non-ionizing EMF radiation. It reduces the egg-laying abilities of the queen leading to a decline in colony strength.
A study conducted by Chennai’s Loyola College in 2012 concluded that out of 919 research studies carried out on birds, plants, bees and other animals and humans, 593 of them showed impacts from RF-EMF radiations. 5G will be adding to the effects of this electrosmog.
#11 – Most 5G Studies Mis-Leading
5G will use pulsed millimeter waves to carry information. But as Dr. Joel Moskowitz points out, most 5G studies are misleading because they do not pulse the waves. This is important because research on microwaves already tells us how pulsed waves have more profound biological effects on our body compared to non-pulsed waves. Previous studies, for instance, show how pulse rates of the frequencies led to gene toxicity and DNA strand breaks.
Live Testing Already Begun
AT&T have announced the availability of their 5G Evolution in Austin, Texas. 5G Evolution allows Samsung S8 and S8 + users access to faster speeds. This is part of AT&T’s plan to lay the 5G foundation while the standards are being finalized. This is expected to happen in late 2018. AT&T has eyes on 19 other metropolitan areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco and so on. Indianapolis is up next on their 5G trail due to arrive in the summer.
Qualcomm has already demonstrated a 5G antenna system with about 27 decibel gain. According to ABI Research, is “about 10 to 12 more db than a typical cellular base station antenna.” Not a good sign.
Many more private sector companies such as HTC, Oracle, Sprint, T-Mobile are playing a role in the developing of testing platforms by contributing time, knowledge or money.
Call to Action
Research and pre-testing is rampant by companies who are interested to tap into the lucrative waters of 5G. But few are willing to research its effects on health. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines remain essentially unchanged since 1998, not allowing for the recognition of radio frequency microwave radiation and MMWs as harmful unless there is a heating effect. But a few experts are speaking out.
DariuszLeszczynski from the University of Helsinki and also former member of the International Agency Research on Cancer is one of them. He has brought to attention to ICNIRP intention to classify skin as limbs. Limbs are paid lesser attention to when classifying exposure levels. Research indicates that MMWs affect the skin and the eyes the most. If skin is classified as a limb, this will pave the way for industry giants to introduce even higher exposures and put more people at risk.
The Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (GUARD) addressed a letter to the FCC in September of 2016, bringing to their attention the harm 5G will inflict. GUARD warned the FCC that 5G violates Article 3 of The UN Declaration of Human Rights which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” The document is laden with research, information and global support.
To learn how to write, call or email the relevant agencies to protest against the 5G deployment go here parentsforsafetechnology.org
What Experts are Saying
Here’s what experts are saying about 5G:
“Along with the 5G there is another thing coming – Internet of Things. If you look at it combined the radiation level is going to increase tremendously and yet the industry is very excited about it…. they project 5G/IoT business to be a $7 trillion business.”
-Prof. Girish Kumar, Professor at Electrical Engineering Department at IIT Bombay
“The new 5G wireless technology involves millimeter waves (extremely high frequencies) producing photons of much greater energy than even 4G and WiFi. Allowing this technology to be used without proving its safety is reckless in the extreme, as the millimeter waves are known to have a profound effect on all parts of the human body.”
-Prof. Trevor Marshall, Director Autoimmunity Research Foundation, California
“The plans to beam highly penetrative 5G milliwave radiation at us from space must surely be one of the greatest follies ever conceived of by mankind. There will be nowhere safe to live.”
-Olga Sheean former WHO employee and author of ‘No Safe Place’
“It would irradiate everyone, including the most vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation: pregnant women, unborn children, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, the elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill.”
—Ronald Powell, PhD, Letter to FCC on 5G expansion
How To Protect Yourself From 5G
My 3 step approach for dealing with EMFs can be summarized as:
Understand your exposures. Understand the different types of EMFs and how they behave – hence the need to read (and share) articles like this one.
Measure – use EMF meters to obtain readings and identify hotspots.
Mitigate your exposure. Which means either eliminate the source, move further away from the source of radiation or shield your body.
I recommend the same approach with 5G. There is a concern that current EMF meters are not able to measure the frequencies of MMWs. On this point, researcher Alasdair Philips from Powerwatch states “current RF meters cover the frequency ranges proposed for most 5G use in the next three years”.
Endless Possibilities For The Future
5G may bring about a new form of industrial revolution, human connectivity and even a new reality. It offers endless possibilities for the future.
We do need more research. But already what is clear, as the research I’ve shared here indicates, is that there are real dangers.
Which is why it even more important to take action to protect yourself and your loved ones. Please share this article with your friends and family.
A 5G Wireless Future – Dr. Cindy Russell
Latest on 5G Spectrum – EMFields Solutions Ltd
IJMTER ISSN (online) 2349 – 9745 Evolution of Mobile Generation Technology: 1G to 5G and Review of Upcoming Wireless Technology 5G by Lopa J. Vora
'This means that the next development of telecommunication devices known as 5G (which operates up to 300GHz) will not be safety tested for non thermal or biological effects. Why? The telecoms industry will argue that because these frequencies are non-ionising, there is no need to test for carcinogenic processes'.
All research on the effects of microwave at Earth surface level has been done looking at the natural dosage humans receive from those waves making it through atmosphere to surface and no----we do not naturally receive enough microwave exposure to be alarmed. Microwaves are LONG WAVES making it hard for them to PENETRATE objects like walls, glass, and we are told skin surfaces reflect these waves. This is what NON-IONIZING means---they do not interact with objects to create chemical changes.
SHORT WAVELENGTH ultraviolet and gamma CAN PENETRATE and do damage to objects and human bodies so they are called IONIZING.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ionizing radiation hazard symbol
Ionizing radiation (ionising radiation) is radiation that carries enough energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them. Ionizing radiation is made up of energetic subatomic particles, ions or atoms moving at high speeds (usually greater than 1% of the speed of light), and electromagnetic waves on the high-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Gamma rays, X-rays, and the higher ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing, whereas the lower ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also the lower part of the spectrum below UV, including visible light (including nearly all types of laser light), infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all considered non-ionizing radiation'.
The intent as with all profiteering and predatory health care since CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA is to simply study citizens over decades AFTER they install this collecting data from the very 5G robots they will place in our bodies and on our clothes.
Is Non-Ionising Radiation Really Safe?
[Let’s talk 5G / cell / microwave technologies]
April 24, 2017 TLB Staff Analysis, FREEDOM, HEALTH, TECHNOLOGY 0
Is Non-Ionising Radiation Really Safe?
By Dr. Ellis Evans
The telecoms industry and governmental regulators have consistently ignored or avoided meaningful discussion on the cancer risks from using mobile phone and other microwave devices such as DECT phones, smart-meters, etc.
Our safety regulators also routinely disregard any form of criticism, particularly the omission of non-thermal biological effects in their regulatory methodology.The reason why is very simple yet they do not advertise the ‘Achilles heel’ or foundation stone of their regulatory and legal methodology. In fact, all safety legislation in all countries that rely on data from the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) focus solely on non-ionising radiation. Biological or non-thermal effects such as cancer, DNA-breakages, disruption in cellular transport and other adverse biological processes are completely ignored.
I urge the reader to ask their telecoms regulators one very simple question, ‘do you have any legislation relating to consumer safety that specifically mentions non-thermal or biological effects’?
Over here in the UK I have looked at the legislation surrounding the use of mobile phone and other microwave technologies from Public Health England (PHE) and cannot find any exposure values or safety information relating specifically to non-thermal or biological effects.
The regulatory framework is concerned with thermal or skin-heating effects and nothing else. Here in Europe, America, Australia and elsewhere, regulators rely on advice and information in setting exposure levels on data from the ICNIRP. The ICNIRP base all their safety data on non-ionising radiation which legally translates to thermal heating effects only.
The ICNIRP and telecom regulators the world over further argue that initiation of biological effects is theoretically impossible because the devices they regulate use non-ionising radiation. Significantly, note that current-day regulatory advice related to exposure of non-ionising radiation extends up to 300 GHz.
This means that the next development of telecommunication devices known as 5G (which operates up to 300GHz) will not be safety tested for non thermal or biological effects. Why? The telecoms industry will argue that because these frequencies are non-ionising, there is no need to test for carcinogenic processes.
The rest of this article will discuss what we need to know about the hidden and forgotten debate surrounding the definition of non-ionising radiation. It is also good to know that all parameters of non-ionising radiation were put in place before the wide-scale rollout of the Internet, WIFI and the proliferation of consumer toys that has led to our present-day electromagnetic entanglements with electrosmog.
The electromagnetic spectrum (see Figure 1) illustrates the division between non-ionising and ionising radiation. The threshold between these two groups of radiation was discussed from the early 19th century onwards within private scientific organisations such as the ICRU (International Committee on Radiation Units), ANSI/IEEE (American National Standards Institute /Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers) and a host of other safety standards setting bodies.
Notably, most of these findings were eventually consolidated under another private body called the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection). These august scientific bodies were staffed mostly by physicists and engineers with little input from the medical profession. The ICNIRP ‘guidelines’ on non-ionising radiation were formulated in 1988, just prior to the rollout of the Internet.
Historically, it has always been easier to scientifically define ionising radiation compared to non-ionising radiation. This is due to the fact that ionising radiation mostly refers to radioactive substances, principally alpha, beta and gamma emitters. Non-ionising radiation has always been more difficult to define scientifically because it solely relies on the value of the photon energy to define the threshold between itself and ionising radiation.
Additionally, we are talking about a photon which can be viewed as a planar travelling wave having electrical and magnetic components. It is difficult to predict the propagation of microwave frequencies because the signal can be reflected, refracted, attenuated or enhanced depending on what is between your head and the mobile phone tower. The significance of both electrical (e) or magnetic properties (h) varies along the electromagnetic spectrum. Towards the low end of this spectrum, biological systems are dominated by magnetic effects because the wavelengths (or dissipation of energy per wavelength) is very dilute.
As we move up the spectrum band, wavelengths become smaller with resultant rise in increased electrical characteristics. There is little work that has been carried out to identify the significance of the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic effects of body exposures to frequencies between 30 kHz and 300 GHz. Instead we rely on safety work carried out during the development of radar.
There are several reviews (mostly military) that take a standard view that exposure to microwave radiation is carcinogenic and leads to all sorts of cancers.
To make sense of radiation in general, it is useful to look at what we are already aware of. If we look at the entire electromagnetic spectrum, we can already identify carcinogenic effects from (a) electrical generating systems and (b) overhead pylons and cables and electrical substations. All these processes create very high electrical field voltages and currents with subsequent high magnetic fields. If you live close to these structures you increase the statistical odds you may contract some form of cancer. Eden(2) suggests in his paper published by Cancer Treat Rev (2010) that environmental factors, including non-ionising radiation, contribute to the etiology of childhood cancers (leukemias).
The Dutch government currently has a scheme going on where it is buying up all privately owned properties that lie under high power electrical pylon cables. They understand what is going on in terms of cancer induction and are pro-actively taking issues into their own hands(4).
If we move up the electromagnetic spectrum we discover carcinogenic effects attributed to microwave radiation studies. A snapshot of these studies can be found here. It is useful to understand that exposures to microwave radiation can increase free radicals, decrease DNA repair mechanisms, lead to DNA-breakages and other initiators of cancer. These biological endpoints are all potential initiators of carcinogenesis, similar in function to that found for ionizing radiation. Clearly, if it waggles like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck. It is becoming more and more difficult for the telecoms industry and its regulators to ignore non thermal effects.
Part of the problem we face when presenting this type of data to regulators is that we have to engage the State Machine which is reluctant to change any of its microwave safety advice in light of new developments. This is even more so when the facts between microwave exposure and initiation of carcinogenic processes become ever larger and more significant.
In 2011 the IARC (International Agency on Cancer Research) classified exposure to microwave radiation, as Class 2B i.e. possibly carcinogenic. This warning is based on the fit between the incidence of gliomas (brain tumours) and heavy users of mobile phones. Heavy usage in the year 2000 was defined as 30 minutes per day. Usage for many groups within present-day society easily exceeds this length of time. This agency is the scientific arm of the World Health Organisation. The classification of microwave radiation having the potential to initiate cancer was based on data from a study called INTERPHONE(3).
The IARC report itself is 481 pages long and it is by no means a critique of the telecoms industries because it clearly states that “although numerous experimental studies have been published on the non-thermal biological effects of RF-EMF, multiple computational analyses based on biophysical and thermodynamic considerations have concluded that it is theoretically implausible for physiological effects to be induced at exposure intensities that do not cause an increase in tissue temperature”.
In other words, it is clear from a first read of this report that the Agency itself accepts the ‘theory’ behind non-ionising radiation. Interestingly, the weight and significance of data from the INTERPHONE study probably led to much heated discussion. Those members of the Agency who stuck to their guns in demanding some form of cancer warning on exposure to microwave radiation are to be commended. Importantly, this is the first bit of light in the whole debate on non-ionising radiation.
This IARC Class 2B carcinogenicity warning suggests that, under certain conditions, it is possible to initiate carcinogenic processes for users of mobile phones. Clearly, it is no longer safe to assume that non-ionising radiation is safe. This is an ‘inconvenient truth’ for the telecoms industries and their regulators yet the significance of this cancer-warning has largely gone over the head of consumers.
Regulators do not want to talk about mobile phone frequencies, Class 2B cancer warning in the same breath with ‘non-ionising’ radiation. Clearly, their is much more scientific work that needs to be carried out on exposure to microwave radiation. It should be carried outwith an open mind free from the restrictions of the scientific paradigm that ‘non-ionising radiation’ is incapable of initiating carcinogenic processes within the body.
The real problem we all face in this is simply that the Scientific Process itself is not working as it should to resolve any of these issues. Thomas Kuhn, who was a philosopher of Science, stated that ‘any science must be falsifiable’. What he meant by this phrase is that any hypothesis must be provably wrong i.e. the hypothesis should be put to the test until it sinks or passes all tests. Only then can we view it as a scientific theory. Even at this stage of scientific maturity, the theory remains a theory unless or until proven wrong. Science supposedly advances in this way.
The current ‘no cancer effect’ hypothesis put forward by a sizeable chunk of health physicists, the telecoms industries and their regulators is that there is insufficient photon energy within microwave frequencies to eject electrons from the outer orbit of elements or molecules. It is obvious that the current hypothesis needs rigorous testing because it is becoming clearer each day that exposure to microwave radiation is causing adverse biological effects on our body and capable of causing cancer. If for some reason microwave radiation is able to break chemical bonds in several different ways, it is highly likely that these biological changes will lead to carcinogenesis. If the telecoms industry took a leaf out of the life of Dr Bob Becker(6), they may discover a wealth of information related to the functioning of the central nervous system when exposed to artificially-induced electromagnetic frequencies.
This work is even more important now because unlike the early 1970s, we are all encapsulated within a sea of electromagnetic frequencies. What effect do all these frequencies have on the body? Is there a ‘cocktail effect’ going on where the presence of one frequency in combination with a second (or more) frequency is able to exert a disproportionate adverse biological effect on the body? Do some frequencies completely swamp the central nervous system to the extent that the entire internal signaling of the body begins to break down? Do we really understand all there is to know about the effect of magnetism on the human body both at the low and high end of the electromagnetic spectrum?
According to Kuhn, the telecoms industry and its regulators should be conducting experiments to falsifiably prove that exposure to microwave radiation does initiate carcinogenic processes. Every single time a paper is looked at by the ICPIRN /IARC /PHE (Public Health England) they argue the scientific protocol is not sufficiently robust or of the wrong type or statistically unsound. Almost all the data on non thermal effects is ignored for one reason or another. When this particular apple falls to the ground – and it will – we approach what Kuhn describes as the ‘overturning of a scientific paradigm’. It will be like a switch going off in the minds and perception of the scientific community. Look for massive changes in the telecom industries and how they do business. The telecom regulators and everyone else involved in this deception of perception will quickly fall by the wayside. Everyone loves mobile phones yet it is the fully informed consumers who will ultimately demand much safer technologies – consumer sovereignty truly is king.
Finally, most ordinary people would say that the chances of catching cancer is down to lifestyle choices, the type of work you do and where you live. The bulk of the scientific community, however, views this as chance, luck or down to the odds your genes randomly mutate. It took a long time coming but a scientific paper published in 2015 sides with the view of ordinary people in these matters and statistically argues that “external factors play a big role (in cancer-causation), and people cannot hide behind bad luck”(6). In other words, many of the fallacies of Big Science are beginning to break down. It is only a matter of time before many of the fallacies behind non-ionising radiation break down as well. Next time you see anything from a government regulatory department that says ‘these devices use non-ionising radiation’ as a form of fluffy appeasement, understand there is a lot in this sentence that has not been said, caveat emptor.
'By comparison, even a very powerful high-end Wi-Fi router only produces around 1 watt of microwave energy and, unlike the magnetron in a microwave oven, a Wi-Fi router radiates that minuscule 1 watt of power in a bubble-like-cloud around the router. In other words, if you wanted to heat up even a milliliter of water above room temperature using this energy, you’d be waiting…well, forever'.
Here is from where the deliberate confusion over this issue of public exposure to microwaves with 5G stems----in each case global 1% and their 5% pols and players keep indicating exposure to ONE product---here we see WIFI connections ----the other is the SMART METER being installed on all homes and office buildings----and the other is CELL TOWERS on schools. Each time they say no harm will come from that single product and they never speak to the level of saturation of every environment with microwaves via antennae PLACED EVERYWHERE. We are told that global 1% are using only the higher-end of microwave length while they are selling bundled airwaves in all lengths.
HOWTOGEEK may be good at talking technology but they are working with global 1% in hiding what are real dangers in 5G.
DON'T WORRY----WE WILL INVENT MICROWAVE REPELLENT CLOTHES, HATS, SHOES THE 99% CAN WEAR.
Don’t Worry: Wi-Fi Isn’t Dangerous
by Jason Fitzpatrick on January 18th, 2016
There are a staggering number of articles on the Internet trumpeting the dangers of “Wi-Fi radiation” and how risky it is to your health. Don’t worry: it’s a bunch of nonsense.
If you don’t want to read a single sentence further, that’s fine, we’ll spoil the whole article for you: Wi-Fi poses absolutely no threat to anyone’s health. If you’re curious as to why (and perhaps so you can explain things to your overly anxious friends) we’re happy to outline exactly what’s going on.
Scare Tactics Are Click Bait
You’ll find no shortage of articles on the dangers of just about anything if you look around the Internet. Articles about how dangerous modern medicines are, how dangerous cell phones are, how dangerous cooking your food in a microwave is, and yes, how dangerous Wi-Fi is. People claim that Wi-Fi routers keep them awake at night, cause cancer, cause hyperactivity in children, and all manner of unsupported and nonsensical claims.
Yet despite the absolute lack of evidence for any of these claims, people still keep clicking on the articles, posting them to Facebook, sharing them with their friends, and worst of all believing that Wi-Fi is some silent killer in their midst quietly nuking their bodies and steering them towards an inevitable bout with cancer.
These articles and websites don’t exist because the threat is real, however. They exist because they are a vehicle for turning people’s fear into money. The more people share nonsense articles about the dangers of Wi-Fi (or other harmless modern things) the more people click on them, the more ad-revenue is generated, and the more motivation the people peddling these rubbish articles have to keep creating and promoting them.
We actually debated including some links to some of the worst offenders just to show you how outlandish (and unscientific) the claims they make are, but we couldn’t stomach giving them even a penny of ad revenue. If you want to see how bad things are you can search for “Wi-Fi dangers” on Google where, it becomes clear, the page rank algorithm doesn’t always reward pages with the most scientific merit.
We can’t stop people from misleading others for profit, but we can respond to their nonsense. We’ve received more than a few letters here at How-To Geek from concerned readers asking if they should turn off their wireless equipment when not in use, or get rid of it altogether. So we’ve decided to add a reasonable voice to the conversation so, hopefully, people will find this and breathe a much deserved sigh of relief.
Not All Radiation Is Equal
To understand why Wi-Fi is not a danger to your health, you need to understand some fundamentals about radio communication and the radiation that makes it possible.
The word radiation is, to the lay person, a scary word. Radiation is the stuff that 1960s school children were taught to climb under their desks to avoid, and what prompted Cold-War-terrified Americans to build backyard bomb shelters. Radiation is the stuff that leads meltdowns at nuclear power plants to contaminate the ocean and make land uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Radiation is also the thing that bathes the world in warm sunlight, and makes life on Earth possible. Radiation is also the reason we can turn on a radio and hear music without wires. Radiation is how we change the channels on our television (and for anyone getting their TV fix via over-the-air channels or satellite TV, how the programming gets delivered to their home in the first place).
The most critical concept when it comes to talking about radiation is the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is the dangerous stuff and includes x-ray radiation, gamma radiation, and some amount of ultra-violet light on the high end of the ultra-violet spectrum. The key element here is the wavelength of the radiation type.
Ionizing radiation gets is name because it has enough energy to excite electrons and knock them out of their orbit, or ionize, them. Extensive exposure to this kind of radiation is highly detrimental to the your health, and even low but persistent exposure over time can significantly increase your risk of cancer as exposure can mutate your cells. Even when used for beneficial purposes (like using an x-ray machine to diagnose a patient), the exposure is carefully controlled by the use of lead vests, shielding material, and so on so that the patient and the operator of the machine are given as minimal exposure as necessary. If you’re worried about radiation, this is the radiation you should be worried about. (And even then you shouldn’t be that worried as the amount of radiation you’re exposed to during routine medical procedures is, over the course of your lifetime, less than the amount of radiation you’re exposed to over the same period on the aircraft flights you take for business and vacations.)
On the opposite side of things, we have non-ionizing radiation. This radiation does not have enough energy to ionize atoms, and includes everything else on the radiation spectrum including infrared radiation, visible light, and radio waves — including everything from the kind of low-energy radio waves we use for walkie-talkies to higher energy radio waves like those in the microwave portion of the spectrum.
Want an official word on the matter?
The World Health Organization, which tends to err on the side of caution before outright dismissing something as toxic, carcinogenic, or otherwise harmful, is very clear that there is no health risk from radio-frequency communication devices. (Their briefing on the matter is actually a great read that highlights how low the risk is and how even people in Wi-Fi dense locations like schools and hospitals are exposed to radio-frequency radiation at thousands of times lower than international safety standards designed to protect individuals working in related industries).
In summary: Long wavelengths? No worries.
Enjoy your radio station, Wi-Fi hotspot, and delicious microwaved Hot Pockets. Short wavelengths? You’re either going to turn into a super hero or (maybe) die of cancer.
Distance and Power Matter
Reading the last paragraph of the previous section you might be saying “Ah hah! Microwaves! Microwaves are bad, they make things very hot and they could burn you!” That’s absolutely true. You would not want to build a human size microwave oven and stand inside it. Nor would you particularly enjoy being the target of the crowd-dispersing microwave cannons built and deployed by the U.S. military.
In those cases, however, there are two important things to note. The person exposed to the non-ionizing microwave radiation would be exposed to a very high power dose at a very close range. The magnetron in your average consumer microwave produces about 700 watts of microwave energy, and that microwave discharge is safely contained within the body of the microwave thanks to proper shielding. Even if the microwave was malfunctioning and the shielding was beginning to fail, you wouldn’t even feel anything standing in the same room as the device.
By comparison, even a very powerful high-end Wi-Fi router only produces around 1 watt of microwave energy and, unlike the magnetron in a microwave oven, a Wi-Fi router radiates that minuscule 1 watt of power in a bubble-like-cloud around the router. In other words, if you wanted to heat up even a milliliter of water above room temperature using this energy, you’d be waiting…well, forever.
Not only are these devices of radically different operating powers, but they are equally at the mercy of the Inverse-square law. The Inverse-square law is a physical law which states that the quantity or intensity of linear-wave radiation is directly inverse to the distance the observing/affected body is from the source of the radiation. In the illustration above, you can see how the further the given area (A) is from the source of the radiation (S), the less exposure it receives. This law applies to radio, microwaves, visible light, and all manner of waves we experience around us in the natural world.
Because of this physical law, even if holding a Wi-Fi router directly against your forehead was very dangerous (and, we assure you, it is not) working in your home office 45 feet away from the Wi-Fi router would not be dangerous simply because the microwave radiation of the already minuscule 1 watt Wi-Fi router would have radically decreased in intensity. When you factor in that the Wi-Fi radiation is already harmless, you see that there is no situation in which the Wi-Fi signal from your router, your laptop, your media center, or any other Wi-Fi device in your home could possibly hurt you.
Wi-Fi certainly isn’t going to do you in, but something else you forgot to worry about while you were worrying about your Wi-Fi router might: put that worry to good use and make sure there are fresh batteries in your smoke detectors, that you’re planning on getting a yearly physical this year, and you floss before bed (you know, those things you’ve been putting off that might actually, sooner or later, harm you).
'That's partly why some 5G participants, like Qualcomm and Intel, are experimenting also in the sub-6 GHz range, as a way to supplement fickle millimeter wave signals with something more stable. Like everything else 5G, that's still very much in the earliest of days'.
Here we see an article saying THE MASSES ---that's WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% CITIZENS-----don't need to be educated right now because it is still a few decades from realization. As with all that is CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---US citizens go from being the legislators of our public policy and having higher education universities tied to educating all citizens on public policy and how it relates to past and future -----to being told by that global 1% we will be informed once all is in place.
For now we are supposed to be thrilled we can download a movie in no time flat----we are supposed to be thrilled we can walk anywhere and receive WIFI----and those virtual reality trips sound cool.
What Is 5G, and When Do I Get It?
Look at the top corner of your phone screen. Right now, it probably reads 4G LTE, and you're probably fine with that. But soon—and we're talking years, not months—your phone will say 5G there instead.
The mobile industry is buzzing about this next generation of high-speed wireless service, and you can expect the chatter to get even louder at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona next week. But don't believe the hype—the shift to 5G won't happen quickly. The carriers have to upgrade their massive infrastructures, for one. Also, 5G is about more than just shuttling GBs to and from your iPhone more quickly. The 5G revolution will cast a much wider net. It's an information conduit being built to connect self-driving cars, VR headsets, delivery drones, and billions of interconnected devices inside the home.
The 5G Basics
In some ways, 5G is pretty much what you'd think it is: faster than 4G, but not as fast as teleportation. There's no hard definition yet, and no hardware standards to build upon—even as the major carriers have been busy testing and touting their own technologies.
The only point of agreement among the carriers is the vague outline. 5G will be crazy fast, crazy stable, and crazy versatile. 10Gbps speeds won't be unheard of. It'll replace home Wi-Fi networks in many cases, offering faster speeds and better coverage.
"Basically, 5G will provide a wider pipeline and faster lanes," says Verizon spokesman Marc Tracey. By faster, think about speeds that are ten times faster than 4G LTE; you'll be able to download Lord of the Rings in seconds, and enjoy a live VR experience streamed to your headset from across the country with very little lag. 5G will also offer lower latency in network communications—picture a transit corridor filled with autonomous cars and drones reacting to wireless signals instantly in life-or-death situations.
How Does 5G Work?
The 5G networks being planned right now will operate in a high-frequency band of the wireless spectrum—between 30 GHz and 300 GHz, in what's known as the millimeter wave spectrum. These millimeter waves can transfer heaps of data at very high speeds, but they don't travel as far as the lower-frequency waves used in 4G networks. High-frequency millimeter waves also have difficulty getting around walls, buildings, and other obstacles.
On a lower-frequency network like 4G LTE, the antennas can be farther apart, and obstacles aren't a big issue. When the 5G networks are built, the carriers will have to use more antennas—many more—to get the same coverage as our current networks. You'll see mini-antennas basically everywhere.
That's partly why some 5G participants, like Qualcomm and Intel, are experimenting also in the sub-6 GHz range, as a way to supplement fickle millimeter wave signals with something more stable. Like everything else 5G, that's still very much in the earliest of days.
Will I Need to Buy a New Phone?
Yes. But the phone will probably rock multiple antennas (see previous section), and everything will just be so, so fast.
How Long Do We Gotta Wait?
Carriers in the US are targeting 2020 for widespread launch. That seems like a long wait, but it's still an ambitious timeline—5G brings with it new antennas, new devices, and new applications for wireless data.
"Where you saw a growth in 4G was around data-centric, smartphone-centric use cases," says Rob Topol, a general manager for Intel's 5G business. "We're looking beyond the smartphone for 5G." In particular, that means categories like automotive, virtual reality, drones, and more should reap its benefits first.
Verizon recently announced it will roll out 5G service in 11 US cities by midyear, but that deployment is meant to replace fixed broadband rather than mobile service. AT&T will deliver its DirectTV Now video service over 5G to a limited number of customers in Austin, Texas. Last year, Sprint delivered live 4K video over 5G at a soccer game, and T-Mobile intends to make 5G a high-speed pipe for VR video.
On the hardware side, both Intel and Qualcomm have introduced 5G modems, as well as other pieces of infrastructure to support the various trials that will be rolling out this year.
Of course, these tests are being conducted before any of the technologies have been standardized. They are also limited-use cases, and a far cry from deploying a massive wireless infrastructure to be used by hundreds of millions of people.
The Language of a Billion 'Things'
Because it's designed for a world in which tens of billions of gadgets depend on constant connectivity, 5G networks will be engineered to adapt to the needs of individual devices. If you're streaming 4K video to a big-screen TV, it may prioritize sheer data throughput. If 5G serves as the connection between a controller and a drone, it may prioritize a quick response.
For mobile devices, 5G will purportedly fix many of the problems with 4G and existing wireless technologies. It'll be designed to support many more concurrent users and devices, serving them all at higher speeds than 4G. The days of your data speeds slowing down because you're at a crowded event are numbered.
First, there's some fleshing out to do. "There is a formal process where 5G is defined, and that is the next step," says Jan Dawson, chief analyst at Jackdaw Research. Only then can companies start rolling it out to the masses, and there's a long way to go.
We discussed in detail NANOBOTS directed at how all these SMART CITIES robotics technology is literally killing our environment but we need to look broadly at what 5G requires in infrastructure and maintenance ----to understand what these structures look like in our everyday environment to see how the saturation of microwaves tied to attraction and capture by ANTENNAE can and will create a public health crises =====this scientist says DON'T WORRY THERE IS A NANOBOT FOR THAT CANCER PROLIFERATION.
Global 1% have places billions of nanobots in oceans under the guise of cleaning pollution-----they have placed billions of nanobots in upper atmosphere under the guise of fighting CLIMATE CHANGE ---they are placing billions of nanobots in our soil under the guise of replacing dead natural soil animals----AND they are placing billions of nanobots as insects replacing more insects being killed by this FAR-RIGHT WING GREEN REVOLUTION. Now we are hearing of plans to place trillions of nanobots inside our bodies under the guise of healing.
Let's look at what products now come with ANTENNAE designed to direct and capture microwaves------we have MICROCHIPS from those on credit cards and bus passes to those employers want to place in every workers' body---every cell phone, every vehicle, every building, every utility post in alleys and on streets, on our clothes, backpacks, sports equipment. As with GPS placed in all cell phones tracking citizens and leaving us unable to choose to OPT OUT----there is not opting out ---all products will have these nanbots, microchips, with ANTENNAE and this will create the ELECTRIFIED environment MANY MANY MANY people feel will create public health crises. SWARM ENGINEERING is what this assault on everything natural is called and we are simply to be assured there will be a fix for anything adverse created by 5G.
As with anything electrical-----these microwaves will be attracted to wet surfaces so it is our sweat glands/perspiration/ eyes that will feel the worst of affect. We all know our lymph system is tied closely to sweat glands and that is from where our bodies protectors from alien cells stems.
'Swarm engineer' to fight cancer with a trillion killer nanobots
By Mark Piesing
Friday 13 November 2015
Sabine Hauert wants to inject cancer patients with a trillion killer nanobots. The 32-year-old swarm engineer at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory is building smart nanoparticles that can work together as targeted cancer killers. "Research has shown that smart nanoparticles can communicate through the environment, like ants laying trails for the rest of the swarm to follow," she explains. One study found that communicating nanoparticles can deliver a 40 times higher dose of anti-cancer drugs to a tumour than those that don't interact.
Hauert's nanoparticles have no embedded electronics or software to guide them -- their size, coating and composition have been designed to create communication and swarm-like behaviour. "They can react to light, magnetic fields or chemicals," she says.
To help identify useful combinations, Hauert created a crowdsourcing platform called NanoDoc, allowing anyone to design a nanoparticle. More than 80,000 simulations have been run since its launch in September 2013. Last August, Hauert assembled a 1,000-strong swarm of Kilobots -- simple 33mm robots designed at Harvard University -- to test these simulations on a macro scale. Its findings: her nanoparticles had a small bug. "They would actually just stick to the first cancer cell they met, rather than penetrating deep into the tumour," she says. The solution: "A two-step nanoparticle with a coating that slowly wears off, allowing the smart particle to go deeper into the tumour."
Ultimately, she believes that the lessons learned can be applied to collectives of much larger robots, whether for cleaning up an oil spill or finding victims of an earthquake. Power to the swarm.
If one thinks of our best in world history electricity making utilities with their towers and utility poles allowing uniform conduction to all 99% of citizens at reasonable price one wonders why spend trillions and trillions and more trillions in this super-sophistocated 5G technology and the answer is ROBOTICS AND SMART CITIES. The need for DEEP STATE control of everything and everybody MOVING FORWARD and the need for SPACE COLONIZATION.
Unlike EARTH, planets and asteroids have no or little atmosphere----no fuels as water/electricity/oil/gas-----but they do have exposure to extreme amounts of LONG WAVELENGTH MICROWAVES.
Long wavelengths mean more data can travel via that wavelength----mega-data and INTERNET OF EVERYTHING creates that need for longer wavelength. Ordinary visible light wavelengths that now saturate our EARTH's surface cannot meet the needs of ROBOTICS AND SMART CITIES ----it met the needs of phones that texted---phones that connected to internet----1G ---2G----3G---then streaming video 4G
99% OF WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT NEED OR WANT SMART CITIES DEEP STATE BUT GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 5% POLS AND PLAYERS KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
“There is no rush,” Crawford added. “5G deployment is years away. We need to take a breath and slow the onslaught of deregulatory legislation in this area. We have time to get this right.”
The Antenna Boom: Small Cells, DAS Emerge As Key Enablers for 5G
By Rich Miller - August 3, 2017 1 Comment
The coming shift to next-generation 5G wireless will require the deployment of tens of thousands of antennas, including macro-cell towers, small cells and dsitributed antenna systems. (Photo: Gap Wireless)
The telecom industry is seeking to deploy tens of thousands of antenna systems to support next-generation 5G wireless broadband systems, which are expected to deliver low-latency connections for the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles.
There will be more high-power macrocells deployed on telecom towers, which have been the focus of many deployment controversies. But the key players in enabling 5G will likely be low-power antennas known as small cells and DAS (distributed antenna systems), which can be mounted on utility poles, buildings and street furniture.
The coming surge in small cell and DAS deployments at the edge of the network has implications for data centers and cloud computing. New technologies will generate oceans of data, especially if autonomous cars gain widespread adoption. That data will be stored in data centers, driving demand for more colocation and cloud computing capacity.
The arrival of this demand will be determined by the timing of the network buildout to deliver all that data. We’re also seeing more participation in the data center industry from companies with holdings in small cells and other wireless infrastructure.
‘A Battle of Inches’ on Utility Poles
There are several challenges facing large-scale antenna deployments for 5G. In office buildings, the focus on connectivity is shifting the economics of wireless infrastructure, prompting calls for cost-sharing between carriers, landlords, and tenants. On the consumer side, companies deploying small cells must negotiate agreements with local municipalities, a complicated and lengthy process, slowed by red tape and resistance from residents.
“We’re fighting a battle of inches on utility poles and streetscapes,” said Josh Broder, the CEO of telecom infrastructure firm Tilson Construction, at the recent Northeast DAS NYC Summit. “In a tower context, the landlords are real estate companies. In this case, they’re municipalities who have other uses for these assets.”
Amid concerns that 5G deployment will be slowed by delays in antenna deployments, the telecom industry is seeking legislative relief. The issue has already made it to the White House, where President Donald Trump expressed support for policies to speed antenna deployments. This debate is already being played out in states and cities around the country.
A Key Enabler for Hyper-Dense 5G Networks
Small cells and DAS are expected to play key roles in boosting network density, allowing wireless systems to support more users and faster speeds. “Small cells” is an umbrella term for several types of low-power antennas (including femtocells, picocells and microcells) that are typically dedicated to a single carrier. DAS systems have additional management functions that allow them to support more than one service provider.
SaveSeveral examples of small cell antenna deployments. (Photo: Gap Wireless)
To support 5G, these antennas are designed to transmit in the part of the spectrum between microwaves and infrared waves. This spectrum is less crowded than lower frequencies used by mobile phones, but there are tradeoffs. At higher frequencies, signals are not as strong and experience interference from walls and trees. The solution is to set up smaller antennas everywhere – on light posts, telephone polls, traffic lights, rooftops, and throughout the interiors of buildings.
“Small cells will become an integral part of mobile networks as operators make the move toward hyper-dense networks with 5G services,” said Kyung Mun, Senior Analyst at Mobile Experts, an analyst firm focused on mobile infrastructure.
Free Resource from Data Center Frontier White Paper Library
Every organization is under pressure to meet the exponential growth in demand for file storage capacity. Surveys show, however, that 60% or more of data on Tier 1 storage is either dormant or rarely used. Download this white paper to learn more about how enterprise file management can help your business maximize storage capacity.
The global small cell market, including indoor and outdoor small cells, grew 26 percent year-over-year in 2016, to $1.5 billion, according to research firm IHS Market. That revenue may triple by 2021, according to Mobile Experts.
The Data Center Angle
The rising profile of small cells is a factor in consolidation in both the telecom and data center sectors. America’s largest tower landlord, Crown Castle, recently said it will acquire Lightower Fiber Network. The $7 billion deal will allow Crown Castle to deploy small cell antennas along Lightower’s fiber network, which is concentrated in Northeast markets that will need additional wireless density.
“We are seeing small cell demand accelerate,” said Jay Brown, President and CEO of Crown Castle. “We believe the long-term opportunity could match towers in size and return. Our conviction around the size and attractiveness of the small cell opportunity has grown over time.”
Small cells also figure in the business plans of several emerging consolidators in the data center industry, especially Digital Bridge, which has gone on a shopping spree for service providers (including DataBank, Vantage Data Centers and C7 Data Centers) and facilities. Digital Bridge owns a portfolio of cell towers, as well as ExteNet Systems, which builds wireless networks for carriers that integrate fiber and antenna systems.
‘Infrastructures Will Start to Merge’
Digital Bridge CEO Marc Ganzi said the company’s data center holdings could provide infrastructure to support ExteNet’s small cell and DAS networks in major cities. One example is San Francisco, where ExteNet partnered with the city to install hundreds of small antennas to improve wireless coverage ahead of the 2016 Super Bowl. Ganzi said Vantage Data Centers could house infrastructure to support ExteNet’s continued growth, either at its Silicon Valley facilities or by creating edge facilities. He sees similar opportunities for DataBank in Chicago, where ExteNet also is working with the Chicago Transit Authority to deploy a small cell network .
“The combination of fiber and towers and (data center) nodes works together,” said Ganzi. “Our belief is that these network infrastructures will start to merge.”
Digital Bridge isn’t alone in this belief. Stonepeak Infrastructure Partners, which teamed with Digital Bridge on the ExteNet acqusition, recently acquired Cologix, a regional data center provider. The blending of wireless and data center infrastructure was also seen in AT&T’s plan to build an edge computing network by adding capabilities to its tower and small cell sites.
Expanding Business Models for Antennas
Analysts says fiber connectivity will position small cells and DAS as gateways to additional services and revenue, which are critical to offsetting installation costs. 5G is not just about better phone coverage, notes Colby Synesael, Managing Director and Senior Research Analyst at Cowen & Co., who has been closely tracking the technology. Faster wireless will enable new services, along with the opportunity to monetize up-front infrastructure investment with recurring revenue over time.
Wireless nodes in a subway corridor. (Photo: Bandwidth Logic)
“Fiber has business models that go beyond wireless,” said Synesael, who said new income streams are critical for 5G antenna deployments. “You’re going to create small cells with fiber that can be used for other businesses. More revenue per small cell will mean lower cost.”
Small cells and DAS systems can be installed on rooftops to boost coverage in neighborhoods. They are also commonly used indoors, to provide adequate cell coverage to crowds at stadiums and conference facilities.
“Until now, DAS has been a one-trick pony in supporting mobile phones,” said Dave Sampat, Regional Manager for Network Planning at AT&T. “As we support more things and transform more businesses, that value changes. It’s now a utility, and an expectation for your customers and tenants. There are huge investments being made, and we have to make money on getting RF into these larger venues like airports or stadium. Now we want the owners to pay for the RF source. Capital is limited and our budget is shifting.”
Office Landlords Prep for Next-Gen Connectivity
Deploying all these new antennas will be expensive, and the economics will influence where additional small cells and DAS are deployed, at least initially.. A key battleground is office buildings, where the quality of Internet connectivity is becoming a key differentiator for landlords.
“What was once viewed as an amenity has become a requirement,” said Nick Stello, the SVP of Information Technology at Vornado Realty Trust, a real estate investment trust (REIT) that operates 19 million square feet of corporate office buildings. “The business side of Vornado can appreciate what wireless brings to a building. When a tenant pays rent, they see wireless as a utility and don’t want to pay extra.”
Cost-sharing is a more workable approach going forward, said Jim Whalen, Chief Information Officer at Boston Properties, a REIT operating 47 million square feet of premium office space.
“I think all three parties (owner, tenant, carrier) have to participate in the model,” said Whalen. “We need to creatively come to the table together, and I don’t think that’s occurring. It’s an opportunity.”
It may take some time for the model to be widely adopted. “(Vornado and Boston) recognized that their tenants would need these services and saw it as the fourth utility,” said Bill DelGrego, Vice President for ExteNet. “We still have a lot of real estate owners that say ‘I’m not paying for anything.’ The education has to happen.
“We’ve been hearing from the carriers about how we have to come up with creative ways to pay for these things,” DelGrego added. “We put a lot of fiber in a lot of buildings. If you want the DAS in your building, think about services you can bundle and provide a single source of value.”
Battling Foliage, Residents and Red TapeIt’s not just offices: Americans want fast wireless everywhere. Wireless antennas everywhere? Not so much. That disconnect will need to be addressed in coming years to improve wireless coverage in neighborhoods and public areas. Wireless carriers hope to deploy thousands of outdoor small cell and DAS systems.
SaveWireless antennas atop a utility pole. (Image: Tilson Construction)
The outdoor DAS (ODAS) and small cell market requires designing for low-height antennas, which often have limited coverage, according to Dominic Villecco, President of wireless engineering firm V-Comm. Antenna siting must account for “clutter” that can interfere with signal, including foliage. Research is important, as trees and foliage aren’t really handles in databases and mapping tools. There’s also seasonal foliage density, which differs in regions with more evergreens.
“The key here is to that we’ve got low antenna heights and have to work closely with the real estate,” said Villecco.
When installing new poles or adding equipment to existing ones, providers must consider the impact on views of the landscape, especially in beach communities or parks. Otherwise you’re asking for resistance from residents.
“We need to be sensitive to where we put these poles,” said Broder, the CEO of Tilson. “It’s really important to partner with communities in being good stewards of these locations.”
Most cities and larger towns have staff that work with telecom providers on small cell deployments, but in smaller towns the decision maker may be an individual engineer.
“One of the challenges is that these facilities are busy – physically busy – and their owners are busy doing other things,” said Broder.
There are many considerations in working with municipalities on antenna deployment. “You’ve got to get local approval,” said Leslie Snyder, Managing Partner of Snyder & Snyder, which specializes in telecom land use law. “The poles we’re picking are typically electrical or telephone poles. The ideal RF design and pole design is often not the ideal zoning design. Pole placements are very critical. Meeting with entities early can save you a lot of time and money.”
The NIMBY Factor
This combination often means a lengthy extended approval process, which can be extended by community concerns. There are many instances of communities organizing to resist macro cell towers. Small cells and DAS systems involve smaller antennas, placed closer to the ground. But these antennas still present aesthetic issues for residents, both with new installations and the expansion of existing sites.
Camouflage: A wireless antenna disguised as a cactus. (Photo: Bandwidth Logic)
“Neighbors may have trouble with nodes that have been there for years,” said Snyder. One response has been camouflaging antennas with faux foliage to make them look like trees (a task which is easier with cacti than evergreens).
A newer strategy is to embed antennas in sidewalks so they appear to be manhole covers. Wireless antenna maker Kathrein says the design was “developed to help operators deploy additional cell sites in places where site acquisition is difficult due to zoning issues.”
In some cases there are disputes over leasing fees, which can vary widely from town to town.
Antennas Drive Policy Disputes
The coming boom in small cells has prompted a policy initiative by wireless providers. Telecom industry associations and lobbyists are backing state-level measures to streamline the process for approvals for small cell and DAS antennas. These bills seek to set ranges for leasing fees, and limit municipalities’ ability to conduct discretionary reviews to coastal areas and historic districts.
Some of these measures have won easy approval. In June, Minnesota Gov. Mark Drayton signed a law standardizing the approval process for small cells, clearing the way for AT&T to invest “tens of millions” in infrastructure upgrades ahead of Super Bowl LII, which will be held in Minneapolis in February 2018.
It’s been a tougher go in Calfornia, where state bill SB49 has met resistance from advocates for municipalities and consumers, who argue that local governments must retain authority to push back on proposed deployments and negotiate the best agreements for residents.
In a July 22 meeting with telecom executives at the White House, President Trump expressed support for streamlined regulations. “We’re going to give you the competitive advantage that you need,” he told the executives, including the CEOs of AT&T and Sprint.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai also supports standards for municipal antenna deployments. “The FCC is working on modernizing the rules for that kind of infrastructure,” Pai wrote. “We shouldn’t apply burdensome rules designed for 100-foot towers to small cells the size of a pizza box. If America is to lead the world in 5G, we need to modernize our regulations so that infrastructure can be deployed promptly and at scale.”
Harvard Law School professor Susan Crawford, a frequent critic of the telecom industry, argues that the deployment of 5G infrastructure provides an opportunity for municipalities to prioritize better broadband for their constituents, rather than faster antenna deployments for the telecom industry.
“What’s really going on is that some carriers (mostly AT&T) are aiming to ensure that single carriers can control entire ‘small cell’ pole systems in individual cities,” Crawford writes, adding that carriers are seeking to “distract all of us by suggesting that preempting local authority over wireless installations will lead to increased investment in genuinely high-bandwidth systems generally and, in particular, in rural areas.
“There is no rush,” Crawford added. “5G deployment is years away. We need to take a breath and slow the onslaught of deregulatory legislation in this area. We have time to get this right.”
After NON-IONIZING the word LATENCY is the most used for 5G. What is LATENCY?
All the technology speak is very complicated so don't think we all need to understand this science. When global 1% tied global online corporations and their products to internet there comes with that the need for no DISRUPTION in service. You do not want robotic surgery being done across the globe to meet with energy disruption that causes a patient to die. You do not want a global factory with deadlines to meet having to deal with robotics being sent into waiting. In order to allow this distance and to allow robotics to operate away from that MOTHERBOARD----there needs to be checks and balances with multiple throughput to seek speed in data transmission.
THE GLOBAL STOCK MARKET NEEDS THIS LATENCY PROBLEM FIXED!
We cannot have more stock market crashes tied to super-duper computer stock trading being unable to be handled......5G FOR TRADERS!
Another key requirement for 5G mobile backhaul network is low latency, especially in uRLLC applications like automated driving, collaborative robots, and remote surgery. 4G legacy networks are not able to support these critical applications, thus opening up an additional revenue stream for operators willing to make the 5G network investment'. 'At microwave link level, a latency as low as 50 microseconds can be achieved over a single hop using traditional microwave bands (6 - 42 GHz). This means that even with several hops, end to end latency still comes well within the acceptable range for 5G backhaul specifications'.
Latency 101: What is latency and why is it such a big deal?
April 2, 2012 BY Joshua Bixby
(This post was written as an addendum to this post, which discusses some recent research into desktop versus mobile latency.)
In web performance circles, “latency” is the amount of time it takes for the host server to receive and process a request for a page object. The amount of latency depends largely on how far away the user is from the server.
To put this in real-world terms, say you visit a web page and that page contains 100 objects — things like images, CSS files, etc. Your browser has to make 100 individual requests to the site’s host server(s) in order to retrieve those objects. Each of those requests experiences at least 20-30ms of latency. (More typically, latency is in the 75-140ms range, even for sites that use a CDN.) This adds up to 2 or 3 seconds, which is pretty significant when you consider it as just one factor that can slow your pages down.
When you also consider that a page can have upwards of 300 or 400 objects, and that latency can reach a full second for some mobile users, you can easily see where latency becomes a major problem. If your goal is to have your entire page load in less than 3 seconds (and if that’s not your goal, it should be), then latency can kill you right out of the gate.
For obvious reasons, tackling latency is a top priority for the performance industry. There are several ways to do this:
Allow more requests to happen concurrently.
Shorten the server round trips by bringing content closer to users.
Reduce the number of round trips.
Improve the browser cache, so that it can (1) store files and serve them where relevant on subsequent pages in a visit and (2) store and serve files for repeat visits.
Browser vendors work around this problem by using multiple connections, which allows the browser to make simultaneous requests to the host server. Since 2008, most browsers have finally moved from 2 connections per domain to 6. Vendors also focus on improving the browser cache.
Google’s SPDY protocol extends what the browser can do by adding a session layer atop of SSL that allows for multiple concurrent streams over a single connection.
Content delivery networks (CDNs) cache content in distributed servers across a region or worldwide, thereby bringing content closer to users and reducing the round trip time. Important to note: While CDNs help with desktop performance, they don’t help mobile latency.
Front-end optimization (either manual or automated) alleviates latency by consolidating page objects into bundles. Fewer bundles means fewer trips to the server, so the total latency hit is greatly reduced. For example, using Strangeloop’s Site Optimizer, a page that starts with 63 objects could see those objects consolidated into 9 resource requests. FEO also leverages the browser cache and allows it to do a better job of storing files and serving them again where relevant, so that the browser doesn’t have to make repeat calls to the server.
Solving latency is an ongoing, spare-no-expense effort. Just last week, it was announced that this summer marks the start of a $4.5 billion fiber-optic cable project that will connect the UK and Japan — with the sole purpose of shaving 60ms of latency. The reason why:
The massive drop in latency is expected to supercharge algorithmic stock market trading, where a difference of a few milliseconds can gain (or lose) millions of dollars.