Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #527635 > unrolled thread

The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 08:52 -0500
    Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-23 18:09 +0000
    Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-24 21:50 -0500
    Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 20:02 -0700
      Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 08:39 -0700
        Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:12 -0500
          Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:46 -0700
        Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 17:17 +0000
          Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 13:16 -0500
            Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 18:51 +0000
          Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:20 -0700
            Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 18:56 +0000
              Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 -0700
                Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 19:19 +0000
              Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 14:11 -0500
          Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:58 -0700
            Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 19:07 +0000
              Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 14:27 -0500
              Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 12:35 -0700
                Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 20:08 +0000
                  Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 13:32 -0700
                    Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 20:52 +0000
                      Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 15:15 -0700
                        Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-26 22:19 +0000
      Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:09 -0500
        Re: The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:32 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#528339

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:16:10 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:16:08 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:31:05 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:02:40 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> >> >> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:52:28 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> >> >> > The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless
> >> >> >> > > http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-FCC-Lays-the-Foundation-for-UltraFast-5G-Wireless-135457
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > > "It was once thought that frequencies above 28GHz could not support
> >> >> >> > > mobile services because their wavelengths were too short and the
> >> >> >> > > signal propagation losses were too high," FCC Commissioner Mignon
> >> >> >> > > Clyburn said. "But industry engineers have now turned these
> >> >> >> > > weaknesses into strengths by finding ways to use short wavelengths to
> >> >> >> > > build dynamic beam-forming antennas to support high-capacity networks
> >> >> >> > > that are small enough to fit into handsets."
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> EM radiation is hazardous in the environment, 
> >> >> >> a "Clean, Quiet Air Act" is in the line for 
> >> >> >> necessary preservations of the environment for 
> >> >> >> the support of human development, generally.  
> >> >> >> The "Clean Air Act" was to reduce to remove 
> >> >> >> poisons in the air, the "Quiet Air Act" is to 
> >> >> >> reduce EM radiation of microwave radio 
> >> >> >> transmissions to suitably low threshold levels.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Two bins of lab mice A and B: throw a cell phone 
> >> >> >> in a bin, it's occupants fare degeneratively 
> >> >> >> over generations (i.e. as of their physiology).
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_function_of_meiosis
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> WiFi?  _Plug it back in_.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> That's what compression and _not wasting 
> >> >> >> bandwidth_ is for.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > The ongoing massive rollout of distributed microwave 
> >> >> > radio transmissions poses an ecological hazard to 
> >> >> > human life.
> >> >> 
> >> >> This has been studied to death by just about every first world nation
> >> >> on the planet for MANY decades now and NO adverse health effects have
> >> >> ever been found.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Extremely high levels of RF energy, i.e. many orders of magnitude higher
> >> >> than cell phones or cell phone towers, do have adverse effects on humans
> >> >> which is why the FCC has rules for HIGH POWER RF exposure.
> >> >> 
> >> >> https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety
> >> >> 
> >> >> The EPA is NOT the place to look for information on RF energy.
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > A usual example is waste-well water.
> >> 
> >> Example of what, exactly?
> >> 
> >> That you have no clue who does what in the real world?
> >> 
> >> > "If that's clean water, you can drink it right here."
> >> > 
> >> > Example, if you are immune to any health effects from 
> >> > radio frequency (and microwave radiation, as for example 
> >> > scatters), you won't mind a mobile tower in your yard.
> >> 
> >> No, I wouldn't; I would be getting paid for getting excellent cell
> >> service.
> >> 
> >> And you miss the point entirely; study after study after study around
> >> the world for many decades has found NO, ZERO, NONE health effects
> >> from cell towers.
> >> 
> >> If you were talking about a 20 Megawatt radar, that would be a different
> >> story.
> >> 
> >> > Or, perhaps that's "not in my backyard".
> >> 
> >> As a matter of fact, my backyard has always been full of antennas.
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > http://www.arrl.org
> 
> You ought to read some of the articles there and learn something.
> 
> > https://www.google.com/#q=%22cell+tower%22+health
> > (Googling:  sampling the mass delusion.)
> 
> Yes, there are lots of kooks that think cell towers effect their health,
> even after decades of studies that show otherwise, kook.
> 
> > You _do_ know that if you toss a wad of foil in the field, 
> > it reflects a wide variety of disorganized signal(s).
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 

You might try it in the microwave oven, 
but, I don't recommend it.  (There are 
some suitable uses of microwave heating 
for smeltering, not to be getting into 
that here.)

> If you actually read some of the articles from your first link, you
> might not continue to sound like an ignorant kook.
> 
> 
> > How are your beehives?
> 
> No beehives anywhere around here, kook.
> 
> 


I know you have to go out and poison all 
the ants crawling all over the transformers 
every now and then, but, how are the beehives?

Where are the beehives?

Jim, I'll thank you to keep your kook to 
yourself, I'm pretty thick-skinned and used 
to brushing off aspersion, but your attitude 
might too easily hurt the self-confidence of 
the next person, anyways don't worry about it.

There is a lot going on in the space.  That said 
this is still the attitude "there's 80,000 
channels and nothing's on, turn it off."

About amateur and citizen radio, yes it was 
still a requirement to know Morse and CB.

None of these "studies" prove "no harm", only 
their claim "we don't know".

Putting the radio in the bin A or B, and 
seeing those hamsters and mice die, is the 
only random factor in the experiment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528348

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:16:10 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:16:08 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 10:31:05 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> >> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:02:40 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 6:52:28 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> >> >> > The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless
>> >> >> >> > > http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-FCC-Lays-the-Foundation-for-UltraFast-5G-Wireless-135457
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > > "It was once thought that frequencies above 28GHz could not support
>> >> >> >> > > mobile services because their wavelengths were too short and the
>> >> >> >> > > signal propagation losses were too high," FCC Commissioner Mignon
>> >> >> >> > > Clyburn said. "But industry engineers have now turned these
>> >> >> >> > > weaknesses into strengths by finding ways to use short wavelengths to
>> >> >> >> > > build dynamic beam-forming antennas to support high-capacity networks
>> >> >> >> > > that are small enough to fit into handsets."
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> EM radiation is hazardous in the environment, 
>> >> >> >> a "Clean, Quiet Air Act" is in the line for 
>> >> >> >> necessary preservations of the environment for 
>> >> >> >> the support of human development, generally.  
>> >> >> >> The "Clean Air Act" was to reduce to remove 
>> >> >> >> poisons in the air, the "Quiet Air Act" is to 
>> >> >> >> reduce EM radiation of microwave radio 
>> >> >> >> transmissions to suitably low threshold levels.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Two bins of lab mice A and B: throw a cell phone 
>> >> >> >> in a bin, it's occupants fare degeneratively 
>> >> >> >> over generations (i.e. as of their physiology).
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_function_of_meiosis
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> WiFi?  _Plug it back in_.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> That's what compression and _not wasting 
>> >> >> >> bandwidth_ is for.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > The ongoing massive rollout of distributed microwave 
>> >> >> > radio transmissions poses an ecological hazard to 
>> >> >> > human life.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> This has been studied to death by just about every first world nation
>> >> >> on the planet for MANY decades now and NO adverse health effects have
>> >> >> ever been found.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Extremely high levels of RF energy, i.e. many orders of magnitude higher
>> >> >> than cell phones or cell phone towers, do have adverse effects on humans
>> >> >> which is why the FCC has rules for HIGH POWER RF exposure.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/radio-frequency-safety
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The EPA is NOT the place to look for information on RF energy.
>> >> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > A usual example is waste-well water.
>> >> 
>> >> Example of what, exactly?
>> >> 
>> >> That you have no clue who does what in the real world?
>> >> 
>> >> > "If that's clean water, you can drink it right here."
>> >> > 
>> >> > Example, if you are immune to any health effects from 
>> >> > radio frequency (and microwave radiation, as for example 
>> >> > scatters), you won't mind a mobile tower in your yard.
>> >> 
>> >> No, I wouldn't; I would be getting paid for getting excellent cell
>> >> service.
>> >> 
>> >> And you miss the point entirely; study after study after study around
>> >> the world for many decades has found NO, ZERO, NONE health effects
>> >> from cell towers.
>> >> 
>> >> If you were talking about a 20 Megawatt radar, that would be a different
>> >> story.
>> >> 
>> >> > Or, perhaps that's "not in my backyard".
>> >> 
>> >> As a matter of fact, my backyard has always been full of antennas.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > http://www.arrl.org
>> 
>> You ought to read some of the articles there and learn something.
>> 
>> > https://www.google.com/#q=%22cell+tower%22+health
>> > (Googling:  sampling the mass delusion.)
>> 
>> Yes, there are lots of kooks that think cell towers effect their health,
>> even after decades of studies that show otherwise, kook.
>> 
>> > You _do_ know that if you toss a wad of foil in the field, 
>> > it reflects a wide variety of disorganized signal(s).
>> 
>> Utter nonsense.
>> 
> 
> You might try it in the microwave oven, 
> but, I don't recommend it.  (There are 
> some suitable uses of microwave heating 
> for smeltering, not to be getting into 
> that here.)

Non sequitur.

Reflection does not result in "disorganized signal(s)"; this is just
babble.

>> If you actually read some of the articles from your first link, you
>> might not continue to sound like an ignorant kook.
>> 
>> 
>> > How are your beehives?
>> 
>> No beehives anywhere around here, kook.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> I know you have to go out and poison all 
> the ants crawling all over the transformers 
> every now and then, but, how are the beehives?

What transformers would that be, kook?

> Where are the beehives?

Out in the country; I live in the city.

> Jim, I'll thank you to keep your kook to 
> yourself, I'm pretty thick-skinned and used 
> to brushing off aspersion, but your attitude 
> might too easily hurt the self-confidence of 
> the next person, anyways don't worry about it.

Just calling it as I see it.

> There is a lot going on in the space.  That said 
> this is still the attitude "there's 80,000 
> channels and nothing's on, turn it off."

Babble.

> About amateur and citizen radio, yes it was 
> still a requirement to know Morse and CB.

More babble; CB has nothing to do with amateur radio.

> None of these "studies" prove "no harm", only 
> their claim "we don't know".

Wrong again, kook.

> Putting the radio in the bin A or B, and 
> seeing those hamsters and mice die, is the 
> only random factor in the experiment.

More kook babble.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528367

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528371

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 2:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

Your most sensible post to date. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528229

On 10/24/15 10:02 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> EM radiation is hazardous in the environment

   Ionizing radiation
     Charged Particles (Alpha, Beta, Muon, Proton)
     Hard UV (EM)
     X-ray   (EM)
     Gamma   (EM

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#/media/File:PIA17601-Comparisons-RadiationExposure-MarsTrip-20131209.png



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528237

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 9:09:55 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 10/24/15 10:02 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > EM radiation is hazardous in the environment
> 
>    Ionizing radiation
>      Charged Particles (Alpha, Beta, Muon, Proton)
>      Hard UV (EM)
>      X-ray   (EM)
>      Gamma   (EM
> 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#/media/File:PIA17601-Comparisons-RadiationExposure-MarsTrip-20131209.png
> 
> 

My "nuclear garbagemen" friends know more about various 
forms of radiation and its effects than I do.

Or "nuclear waste disposal".

Here, though, the fungible datum is that "high powered 
radio transmission interferes with biological processes 
to the point of DNA damage, electrochemical transport 
interference, and decreased viability and reproductibility."

As a Darwinian you might note life will go on anyways, 
but as a preserver and conservator of the environment, 
I don't see much benefit in making it more difficult 
for life to live so you can boob-tube.

FCC Part 15 says "device can cause no interference", well, 
if you put the meter between you and the transmitter, you'll 
notice the needle moves.

Why yes they do carry around black badges.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web