Date: 24 Jul 2019 10:08:57 -0400
From: "Fred Goldstein" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't
On 7/22/2019 10:19 PM, Naveen Albert wrote:
> Actually, this sensationalist piece is the real wolf crier, This
> article has been debunked numerous times by numerous people since it
> was published, and criticizes actual sound science while offering
> little more than empty, baseless, and/or false claims throughout.
Well, no. Mr. Albert is simply indulging in radiophobia, unsubstantiated
fearmongering that justifies itself by repeating an echo chamber of
pseudoscience. And he tops it off by calling The New York Times a fake
news source, while taking Russia Today, a genuine fake news site whose
mission is literally to disrupt western civilization, as gospel.
I am no fan of "5G", which I put in scare quotes not because the
technology is scary to health, but because it's not really a thing.
Rather, 5G refers to pretty much everything the mobile phone industry
has done since 4G LTE reached a certain stable milestone (5=3D4+1).
The network-infrastruture manufacturers need to hype something in
order to get the carriers to keep buying, now that their LTE upgrades
are complete and, frankly, working pretty well.
5G itself, then, is really a set of tweaks to LTE, not all new
technology. It has two major new capabilities. One is the ability to
connect to the User Equipment on two bands simultaneously. The other is
to operate over a wider range of frequencies, including upper microwave
and millimeter wave bands. The FCC has been busily auctioning off upper
microwave bands, as if they could be used for 5G mobile. They can't,
because they're so sensitive to blockage that they only really work with
rather literal line of sight, and not over much distance. But the FCC
wants to take these off the market so they're not available for regular,
first-come first-serve private microwave licensing. Some telcos might
use them in some dense urban areas for short-haul (<200 meters)
last-mile fixed service delivery. If there are no trees in the way.
Early "5G" phones appear to use some of these upper microwave bands,
like 28 GHz. This take a lot of battery power and the circuits tend to
overheat. And it only works when you basically stand right in front of
the cell site. So it's basically a farce, but it does allow the FCC to
take all sorts of anticompetitive actions using 5G as an excuse. The
"race to 5G" is a hot topic too, though it's not clear how it is a
race when what happens in China has no impact on us. But it helps
Ericsson and Huawei sell equipment. There are no American companies
left in the mobile infrastructure business.
The alleged risk is again that of any radio waves. The debunked study
showed that millimeter wave signals cause more organ cell damage than
lower frequency signals. The debunking points out that skin attenuates
higher frequencies more than lower ones, so millimeter waves mostly
don't reach the organs, making it safer. The fearmongers ignore that.
More importantly, though, is the matter of signal strength. We are
constantly exposed to radio waves, from broadcasts, from mobile devices,
from the sun (what do you think radio telescopes see?). The question is
what is dangerous. There is no evidence that radio waves cause the kind
of harm that, say, gamma rays cause. Their main effect is heating. And
meaningful heating takes substantial power -- that's what a microwave
oven does. The riskiest sources of microwaves for most people are their
oven (if the door seals are not clean) and their cell phone. Of any G.
And that's because cell phones are used right next to your head. Radio
waves follow the inverse square law -- twice the distance, a quarter
the power. Another fun fact of cell phones is that they used "closed
loop power control". That is, the base station always tells the mobile
device what power level to use, up to its limit (usually 200 mW). The
idea is for all mobile units to be the same strength at the base
station, whether close or far. So if the device is close -- hears it
loudly -- then its power is lowered. Only if it has a weak signal
(poor path) does it use full power. So if you want to minimize the
power at your head, where it matters, you want to be near
base station, not keep them far from you. And this applies to all
One might quibble with FCC safety standards, though they are based on
science. But the general rules of radio propagation always apply.
Fearmongers selling nostrums (and there's an industry there, selling
gullible folks crap like bracelets that are supposed to protect you
from deadly Wi-Fi and "earth rays") should be seen for what they
are. 5G is not the great thing that its backers claim, but not because
it's deadly; it's really just more of the same.
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" ionary.com
+1 617 795 2701
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:27:58 +0000
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
Subject: What's Eating Your Comcast Data Cap?
Comcast has put its proverbial finger to the wind to define an
"appropriate" data cap it declares "generous," regardless of how
subjectively random that cap happens to be. Although 1,000 GB - a
terabyte - usage allowance represents a lot of internet traffic, more
and more customers are finding they are flirting with exceeding that
cap, and Comcast has never been proactive about regularly adjusting it
to reflect the reality of rapidly growing internet traffic. That means
customers must protect themselves by checking their usage and take
steps if they are nearing the 1 TB limit.
(Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly)
Date: 23 Jul 2019 16:25:19 -0400
From: "Monty Solomon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Never-Googlers: Web users take the ultimate step to guard
Never-Googlers: Web users take the ultimate step to guard their data
To take back control of their online data, a hearty few are trying to
eliminate all things Google. It's no easy task - Google has the most
popular search engine, browser and mapping software. What it takes to
be a never-Googler.
End of telecom Digest Thu, 25 Jul 2019