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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#527635 — The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless

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."
>

-- 

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#527694

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless

Hurrah for the engineers, but what has this to do with physics, shit head?

Have you ever wondered what your life might have been like if you had
the competence to do more than just copy the words of others, spamming
piece of shit?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#528000

On 10/23/2015 8:52 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> The FCC Lays the Foundation for Ultra-Fast 5G Wireless

>
>> "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."

Si does not do anything at 28GHz, so one must use more expensive material.

also Beam forming is a bitch as the patterns are so narrow, the phase 
gets ripped up if anything moves in the area.  And the best gain you 
could get is only about 3 to 6 dB

And how about that range ?   1 to 3 foot max w handset. so your talking 
inside the house, TV set stuff.

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

#528002

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.

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

#528217

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.

Studying the EPA website (environmental protection 
agency), there's _one_ article on the health effects, 
and it's as of the lab mice example above, instead "hamsters".

Moderating the impact on animal and human life or 
the ecosystem involves refining the information structure 
to reduce harmful electromagnetic radiation and not 
further introduce high-frequency microwave emissions 
as that _disrupt_ life as has evolved on Earth.

"Clean, Quiet Air Act"

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

#528231

On 10/26/15 10:39 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> "Clean, Quiet Air Act"


   Ross, you are like a bull of misinformation in a china shop (USENET).

   You have a Bachelors degree, so I know you are capable of research
   factual information before posting crap.



-- 

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]

#528241

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 9:12:47 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 10/26/15 10:39 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > "Clean, Quiet Air Act"
> 
> 
>    Ross, you are like a bull of misinformation in a china shop (USENET).
> 
>    You have a Bachelors degree, so I know you are capable of research
>    factual information before posting crap.
> 
> 


You might be interested in sci.logic and sci.math besides 
sci.physics.  This is for a usual "mathematical logic for 
mathematical physics", and that USENET Big8 text is basically 
widely-distributed, predates the Internet, is archived redundantly, 
and otherwise designed, built, and maintained for long-term 
reliability and availability.

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

#528247

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.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#528264

On 10/26/15 12:17 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>



   The jimp is correct.


-- 

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]

#528283

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/15 12:17 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>   The jimp is correct.

And no cut and pastes were used in forming my response.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#528266

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.
> 

It's like the guy for the company with the waste sample.  

"If that's clean water, you can drink it right here."

If you're not worried about electromagnetic interference, 
maybe you should contract for a mobile tower in your yard.

Or, would that be "not in my backyard".

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

#528284

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.
>> 
> 
> It's like the guy for the company with the waste sample.  
> 
> "If that's clean water, you can drink it right here."
> 
> If you're not worried about electromagnetic interference, 
> maybe you should contract for a mobile tower in your yard.

That would be fine with me if the city would allow it; what a
concept, getting paid for excellent cell service.

FYI, electromagnetic interference and biological effects of electromagnetic
radiation are two entirely different things; the first has absolutely
nothing to do with living organisms.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#528287

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:01:06 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.
> >> 
> > 
> > It's like the guy for the company with the waste sample.  
> > 
> > "If that's clean water, you can drink it right here."
> > 
> > If you're not worried about electromagnetic interference, 
> > maybe you should contract for a mobile tower in your yard.
> 
> That would be fine with me if the city would allow it; what a
> concept, getting paid for excellent cell service.
> 
> FYI, electromagnetic interference and biological effects of electromagnetic
> radiation are two entirely different things; the first has absolutely
> nothing to do with living organisms.
> 

So, you wouldn't mind if I put up a huge passive reflector 
on my side of the fence, and dimpled it variously for 
aesthetic reasons.

Actually, no you would, because it would bathe your house 
in a wall of noise.

So, I wouldn't do that as it wouldn't be neighborly.

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

#528306

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:01:06 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.
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > It's like the guy for the company with the waste sample.  
>> > 
>> > "If that's clean water, you can drink it right here."
>> > 
>> > If you're not worried about electromagnetic interference, 
>> > maybe you should contract for a mobile tower in your yard.
>> 
>> That would be fine with me if the city would allow it; what a
>> concept, getting paid for excellent cell service.
>> 
>> FYI, electromagnetic interference and biological effects of electromagnetic
>> radiation are two entirely different things; the first has absolutely
>> nothing to do with living organisms.
>> 
> 
> So, you wouldn't mind if I put up a huge passive reflector 
> on my side of the fence, and dimpled it variously for 
> aesthetic reasons.

Not at all, though it would clinch my belief you are a raving kook.

> Actually, no you would, because it would bathe your house 
> in a wall of noise.

Not hardly.

> So, I wouldn't do that as it wouldn't be neighborly.

More likely you wouldn't have the skill required to do such a thing.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#528288

On 10/26/15 1:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you're not worried about electromagnetic interference,
>> maybe you should contract for a mobile tower in your yard.

>
> That would be fine with me if the city would allow it; what a
> concept, getting paid for excellent cell service.
>
> FYI, electromagnetic interference and biological effects of electromagnetic
> radiation are two entirely different things; the first has absolutely
> nothing to do with living organisms.
>
>

   THe jimp is correct.

-- 

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]

#528280

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.

"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.

Or, perhaps that's "not in my backyard".

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

#528290

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.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#528302

On 10/26/15 2:07 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 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.


   The jimp is correct.


-- 

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]

#528311

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

https://www.google.com/#q=%22cell+tower%22+health
(Googling:  sampling the mass delusion.)

You _do_ know that if you toss a wad of foil in the field, 
it reflects a wide variety of disorganized signal(s).

How are your beehives?

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

#528326

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.

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.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web