5G Could Mean Less Time To Flee a Deadly Hurricane, Heads of NASA and NOAA Warn

[DamianTV]

https://science.slashdot.org/story/...-deadly-hurricane-heads-of-nasa-and-noaa-warn

As reported by The Washington Post and CNET, the heads of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warn [5G wireless networks] could set back the world's weather forecasting abilities by 40 years -- reducing our ability to predict the path of deadly hurricanes and the amount of time available to evacuate. It's because one of the key wireless frequencies earmarked for speedy 5G millimeter wave networks -- the 24 GHz band -- happens to be very close to the frequencies used by microwave satellites to observe water vapor and detect those changes in the weather. They have the potential to interfere. And according to NASA and NOAA testimony, they could interfere to the point that it delays preparation for extreme weather events. Last week, acting NOAA head Dr. Neil Jacobs told the House Subcommittee on the Environment that based on the current 5G rollout plan, our satellites would lose approximately 77 percent of the data they're currently collecting, reducing our forecast ability by as much as 30 percent.

"If you looked back in time to see when our forecast skill was 30 percent less than today, it's somewhere around 1980. This would result in the reduction of hurricane track forecast lead time by roughly 2 to 3 days," he said. If we hadn't had that data, Jacobs added, we wouldn't have been able to predict that the deadly Hurricane Sandy would hit. A European study showed that with 77 percent less data, the model would have predicted the storm staying out at sea instead of making landfall. Jacobs said later that we currently have no other technologies to passively observe water vapor and make these more accurate predictions. On April 19th, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine made similar comments to the House Science Committee. "That part of the electromagnetic spectrum is necessary to make predictions as to where a hurricane is going to make landfall," he told the committee. "If you can't make that prediction accurately, then you end up not evacuating the right people and/or you evacuate people that don't need to evacuate, which is a problem."

 

[ATruepatriot]

We should never even open that 5G door. When fully implemented by force over half this country will lose what data service they have now.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Bastiat's case of the seen versus the unseen.

Who knows how many lives will be saved by the the introduction of a cheaper, faster, more expansive cellular broadband network?

I'm not a super big fan of 5G, but for a completely different reason.

It's a logical next step, and I support it (...and I really think the interference problem can be handled). What I don't like about it is that it's hugely overblown in how good it is.

The vast bulk of 5G speeds that are getting touted will only apply to super dense urban centers; the millimeter wave 5G has incredibly short range in the hundreds of feet; that's why there's all this talk about putting antennas on every city block or every intersection's traffic lights.

Out in rural and low density areas, 5G will be an upgrade, but not much. It won't be like when we went from 3G to 4G, where speends went from 1-3 meg up to 20-100 meg; it's going to be a 10-30% boost in speeds, at best; if you've used a 4G LTE-Advance network, then you're already pretty much operating, speed wise, on what you can expect from 5G networks.

So, while I do think 5G is a good thing---I'm just not a huge fan of how it's being marketed as some huge next step for everyone. Sure....it will be, but only for places like NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and other ultra-dense urban areas.

For people like me who live in the middle of nowhere, where there's only 4-6 houses per mile of road? The difference we notice won't be spectacular.

 

[nikcers]

Bastiat's case of the seen versus the unseen.

Who knows how many lives will be saved by the the introduction of a cheaper, faster, more expansive cellular broadband network?

I'm not a super big fan of 5G, but for a completely different reason.

It's a logical next step, and I support it (...and I really think the interference problem can be handled). What I don't like about it is that it's hugely overblown in how good it is.

The vast bulk of 5G speeds that are getting touted will only apply to super dense urban centers; the millimeter wave 5G has incredibly short range in the hundreds of feet; that's why there's all this talk about putting antennas on every city block or every intersection's traffic lights.

Out in rural and low density areas, 5G will be an upgrade, but not much. It won't be like when we went from 3G to 4G, where speends went from 1-3 meg up to 20-100 meg; it's going to be a 10-30% boost in speeds, at best; if you've used a 4G LTE-Advance network, then you're already pretty much operating, speed wise, on what you can expect from 5G networks.

So, while I do think 5G is a good thing---I'm just not a huge fan of how it's being marketed as some huge next step for everyone. Sure....it will be, but only for places like NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and other ultra-dense urban areas.

For people like me who live in the middle of nowhere, where there's only 4-6 houses per mile of road? The difference we notice won't be spectacular.

5G is as much for government surveillance than it is for demand. If the cell phone companies put as much money into 4G LTE tech they could build a network far better in terms of interference. The 5G frequencies can bounce off your skin, and make it light up the same way as in the DARK KNIGHT. They don't have to stick a radio on you anymore to track you, you just have to resonate with the frequencies that they use.

 

[nikcers]

 

[Stratovarious]

A land line is starting to look a lot more attractive these days.

I was forced out of 2g, now , before long they will force me out of 4g.

 

[Fox McCloud]

5G is as much for government surveillance than it is for demand. If the cell phone companies put as much money into 4G LTE tech they could build a network far better in terms of interference. The 5G frequencies can bounce off your skin, and make it light up the same way as in the DARK KNIGHT. They don't have to stick a radio on you anymore to track you, you just have to resonate with the frequencies that they use.

[citation needed]

We've already largely tapped out on the capabilities of 4G; the only way we can get more out of it is by either increasing the frequency we run it at or by using a higher level of QAM modulation---or alternatively, using better antenna arrays with better beamforming.

...Except that's exactly what 5G already is. 5G isn't the huge shift in a singular technology like 2G->3G and 3G->4G was. It's more about combining a whole bunch of little things together for incremental improvements in various spaces, then branding it "5G" for the sake of better understanding on the consumer level.

Human bodies are both reflectors and absorbers of RF--and how much/where we reflect that varies highly, from the thickness of our skin, to the skin color, all the way down to the body fat percentage we have; even FM radio can bounce OR conduct over a body.

I really don't understand why conspiracy people have jumped onto 5G as being "the" thing that allows government surveillance to work---the frequencies that 5G uses are of such a power rating and of such a high frequency, that their effectiveness will be so diminish that stepping inside a regular wooden building (let alone thicker building materials) is going to be enough for you to lose your millimeter wave 5G signal and have to fall back to the low-band 5G one.

 

[nikcers]

[citation needed]

We've already largely tapped out on the capabilities of 4G; the only way we can get more out of it is by either increasing the frequency we run it at or by using a higher level of QAM modulation---or alternatively, using better antenna arrays with better beamforming.

...Except that's exactly what 5G already is. 5G isn't the huge shift in a singular technology like 2G->3G and 3G->4G was. It's more about combining a whole bunch of little things together for incremental improvements in various spaces, then branding it "5G" for the sake of better understanding on the consumer level.

Human bodies are both reflectors and absorbers of RF--and how much/where we reflect that varies highly, from the thickness of our skin, to the skin color, all the way down to the body fat percentage we have; even FM radio can bounce OR conduct over a body.

I really don't understand why conspiracy people have jumped onto 5G as being "the" thing that allows government surveillance to work---the frequencies that 5G uses are of such a power rating and of such a high frequency, that their effectiveness will be so diminish that stepping inside a regular wooden building (let alone thicker building materials) is going to be enough for you to lose your millimeter wave 5G signal and have to fall back to the low-band 5G one.

No it makes their government surveillance high definition instead of standard definition. You can do the same thing with 4g by putting more towers, you know isntead of 5G towers. It just wouldn't be as fast, but most users wouldn't tell the difference in the speed.

 

[nikcers]

https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-uses-nearly-same-frequency-as-weaponized-crowd-control-systems/


5G Network Uses Nearly Same Frequency as Weaponized Crowd Control Systems

Today’s cellular and Wi-Fi networks rely on microwaves – a type of electromagnetic radiation utilizing frequencies up to 6 gigahertz (GHz) in order to wirelessly transmit voice and data. This era of wireless frequency is almost over making room for new 5 G applications will require using new spectrum bands in much higher frequency ranges above 6 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond, utilizing submillimeter and millimeter waves.

5G-Crowd-ControlMillimeter waves are utilized by the U.S. Army in crowd dispersal guns called Active Denial Systems. Dr. Paul Ben-Ishai pointed to research that was commissioned by the U.S. Army to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them. “If you are unlucky enough to be standing there when it hits you, you will feel like your body is on fire.” The U.S. Department of Defense explains how: “The sensation dissipates when the target moves out of the beam. The sensation is intense enough to cause a nearly instantaneous reflex action of the target to flee the beam.”

It uses radio frequency millimeter waves in the 96GHz range to penetrate the top 1/64 of an inch layer of skin on the targeted individual, instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.

A lot of respected people have posted warnings about the mass deployment of commercial millimeter-wave technology.

 

[Fox McCloud]

No it makes their government surveillance high definition instead of standard definition. You can do the same thing with 4g by putting more towers, you know isntead of 5G towers. It just wouldn't be as fast, but most users wouldn't tell the difference in the speed.

This is quite literally arguing "we have to hold back the available bandwidth in society because it means that, as we have more bandwidth, government apparatus' will be able to engage in more spying activities". The problem is the state doing this. Holding back all of society because of one bad actor is dumb and counter-productive; this is like advocating for banning firearms because a few bad actors abuse it.

They could build more 4G towers, but...why not upgrade the existing 4G towers to 5G, then the towers that you were going to build for 4G you put 5G tech on them, instead? You'll have more bandwidth for users, on the whole...and more bandwidth means lower latency, less congestion, jitter, packet loss, and less time spent listening to individual cell users of "ok, you can transmit now, there won't be a problem" and more time just letting them use data. On the whole, it means a better experience for more users; it could potentially mean cheaper, less capped service, with lower latency---an actual competitor for landline services.

https://www.rfsafe.com/5g-network-uses-nearly-same-frequency-as-weaponized-crowd-control-systems/


5G Network Uses Nearly Same Frequency as Weaponized Crowd Control Systems

The Active Denial Systems require 11-12 watts per square centimeter of flesh to be able to induce pain. The power required to drive this much wattage is insane; you're talking hundred of kilowatts of power and for it to only be on for a few seconds.

Cellphone towers radiate at typically radiate at 100 watts.

Even if we assume worst case...let's say 100 watts and an insane 40 dBi antenna, with the user at only 100 feet away, at 95 GHz they'd be receiving 22 milliwatts of power into their skin, per square inch. That's 0.022 Watts. Nowhere close to the wattage needed to heat up human skin....and this was a horrendous overexaggeration; no one is going to be 100 feet away from a 100 watt transmitter and they're not going to be using 40 dBi antennas, either.

The amount of wattage you'd need, radiated at the antenna, with a 40 dBi antenna, to match the 11 watts per square centimeter would be a massive 50,000 Watts. Nevermind the amount power to drive such an antenna array would be insane (which is why you always hear about these trucks that power them having something like a megawatt power supply and they only leave it on in bursts for a few seconds).

It's just not possible to reach that kind of power output with the antennas they're mounting--you'd need ultra ultra directional antennas (they're not; these are designed to cover hundreds of customers) radiating thousands of watts (they're not), at very close distances.

ANd this isn't even getting into the frequencies used: https://www.fcc.gov/5G

Most of 5G is thought to be using around 28 GHz. Sure, you can use above 95 GHz, but this probably isn't going to happen for the majority of cases. Why? While it has increased bandwidth, the amount of power you're going to have to drive through the antenna to get that extra bandwidth will be crazy.

In short, while there's legitimate criticism of 5G (mostly how it's being marketed and touted), the fact it's "dangerous" is utterly laughable.

 

[nikcers]

This is quite literally arguing "we have to hold back the available bandwidth in society because it means that, as we have more bandwidth, government apparatus' will be able to engage in more spying activities". The problem is the state doing this. Holding back all of society because of one bad actor is dumb and counter-productive; this is like advocating for banning firearms because a few bad actors abuse it.

They could build more 4G towers, but...why not upgrade the existing 4G towers to 5G, then the towers that you were going to build for 4G you put 5G tech on them, instead? You'll have more bandwidth for users, on the whole...and more bandwidth means lower latency, less congestion, jitter, packet loss, and less time spent listening to individual cell users of "ok, you can transmit now, there won't be a problem" and more time just letting them use data. On the whole, it means a better experience for more users; it could potentially mean cheaper, less capped service, with lower latency---an actual competitor for landline services.



The Active Denial Systems require 11-12 watts per square centimeter of flesh to be able to induce pain. The power required to drive this much wattage is insane; you're talking hundred of kilowatts of power and for it to only be on for a few seconds.

Cellphone towers radiate at typically radiate at 100 watts.

Even if we assume worst case...let's say 100 watts and an insane 40 dBi antenna, with the user at only 100 feet away, at 95 GHz they'd be receiving 22 milliwatts of power into their skin, per square inch. That's 0.022 Watts. Nowhere close to the wattage needed to heat up human skin....and this was a horrendous overexaggeration; no one is going to be 100 feet away from a 100 watt transmitter and they're not going to be using 40 dBi antennas, either.

The amount of wattage you'd need, radiated at the antenna, with a 40 dBi antenna, to match the 11 watts per square centimeter would be a massive 50,000 Watts. Nevermind the amount power to drive such an antenna array would be insane (which is why you always hear about these trucks that power them having something like a megawatt power supply and they only leave it on in bursts for a few seconds).

It's just not possible to reach that kind of power output with the antennas they're mounting--you'd need ultra ultra directional antennas (they're not; these are designed to cover hundreds of customers) radiating thousands of watts (they're not), at very close distances.

ANd this isn't even getting into the frequencies used: https://www.fcc.gov/5G

Most of 5G is thought to be using around 28 GHz. Sure, you can use above 95 GHz, but this probably isn't going to happen for the majority of cases. Why? While it has increased bandwidth, the amount of power you're going to have to drive through the antenna to get that extra bandwidth will be crazy.

In short, while there's legitimate criticism of 5G (mostly how it's being marketed and touted), the fact it's "dangerous" is utterly laughable.

You know I didn't say they were going to use it as an active denial system, I said they would use it to monitor us more. The government spends lots of money monitoring social media so they know where you go and when you go, but with this it doesn't matter if you don't bring your phone or post it on social media. That frequency hits your skin and it is literally radar.

 

[Fox McCloud]

You know I didn't say they were going to use it as an active denial system, I said they would use it to monitor us more. The government spends lots of money monitoring social media so they know where you go and when you go, but with this it doesn't matter if you don't bring your phone or post it on social media. That frequency hits your skin and it is literally radar.

...You quoted an article and bolded the portion that talks about Active Denial, then you go on to mention that you weren't mentioning that they were going to be used for active denial? What are you even on about.

High frequency would be terrible for radar-like systems, as just pointed out, it gets absorbed, quite readily by the skin. Note; absorbed, not reflected.

You're better off using lower frequencies...and even then, even at lower frequencies, you're liable to absorb, reflect, or refract the signal depending on your fat composition, how thick your skin is, and the pigmentation of your skin.

The higher the frequency, the more likely it is to just straight up get absorbed by your skin alone...which would make millimeter wave 5G horrible for triangulation purposes.

If you want to talk about tracking, accessing a phone's GPS data, remotely, over 2G would be far superior in the vast bulk of situations, especially when 95% of the population owns a cellphone.

There's much easier and cheaper ways they could track you, that already exist. To posit that 5G is being built out because of government surveillance, or that it'll benefit from it (aside from having increased bandwidth in more areas, thus allowing for more data to be sent in less time), is a bit ludicrous. We live in an internet driven world that needs ever increasing amounts of cheap data delivered to us over low-latency, high-bandwidth connections; that's the big driver of 5G, not this "it's actually radar to spy on you!" nonsense.

 

[nikcers]

...You quoted an article and bolded the portion that talks about Active Denial, then you go on to mention that you weren't mentioning that they were going to be used for active denial? What are you even on about.

High frequency would be terrible for radar-like systems, as just pointed out, it gets absorbed, quite readily by the skin. Note; absorbed, not reflected.

You're better off using lower frequencies...and even then, even at lower frequencies, you're liable to absorb, reflect, or refract the signal depending on your fat composition, how thick your skin is, and the pigmentation of your skin.

The higher the frequency, the more likely it is to just straight up get absorbed by your skin alone...which would make millimeter wave 5G horrible for triangulation purposes.

If you want to talk about tracking, accessing a phone's GPS data, remotely, over 2G would be far superior in the vast bulk of situations, especially when 95% of the population owns a cellphone.

There's much easier and cheaper ways they could track you, that already exist. To posit that 5G is being built out because of government surveillance, or that it'll benefit from it (aside from having increased bandwidth in more areas, thus allowing for more data to be sent in less time), is a bit ludicrous. We live in an internet driven world that needs ever increasing amounts of cheap data delivered to us over low-latency, high-bandwidth connections; that's the big driver of 5G, not this "it's actually radar to spy on you!" nonsense.

The 5G frequencies can bounce off your skin, and make it light up the same way as in the DARK KNIGHT. They don't have to stick a radio on you anymore to track you, you just have to resonate with the frequencies that they use.

cheaper ways? whats cheaper than getting Americans to pay for it in their cellphone bills, America loves buying the best cell phone out, it makes you popular the cell phone ads say.

If you want to talk about tracking, accessing a phone's GPS data, remotely, over 2G would be far superior in the vast bulk of situations, especially when 95% of the population owns a cellphone.

So they get to surveil the 5% who don't have a cellphone or social media, how is that not beneficial?

 

[Fox McCloud]

I said "[citation needed]", which you then provided the link to the article about active denial and bolded the portion about using it to heat up the skin....what else am I supposed to think you're implying?

 

[nikcers]

I said "[citation needed]", which you then provided the link to the article about active denial and bolded the portion about using it to heat up the skin....what else am I supposed to think you're implying?

That you can take a picture of someones skin with something that penetrates just a little bit of the skin, you might not be able to burn them, but you could get a picture. You could probably know where everybody is at all times as long as you aren't hiding in a faraday cage/elevator type enviornment at all times. As soon as you walk outside they can detect it with the radar, and then they could even connect it to a camera in the sky that can see a fingernail from 500 miles in the air. Meaning they know where you go and when you go and they can watch it all in real time.

 

[nikcers]

Its the same type of shit we use to detect stuff in the water, hydrophones, we blast radio waves in the water and we can see if they are attacking us with submarines. We know where every whale is.

 

[Fox McCloud]

....it's not. Sonar operates at especially low frequencies (usually in the kilohertz range). Radar tops out at 40 GHz.

Radar *specifically* for water vapor is 24 GHz, but those use extremely huge arrays with lots of power---nowhere near what a celltower uses.

 

[nikcers]

....it's not. Sonar operates at especially low frequencies (usually in the kilohertz range). Radar tops out at 40 GHz.

Radar *specifically* for water vapor is 24 GHz, but those use extremely huge arrays with lots of power---nowhere near what a celltower uses.

Yeah the same frequencies can't be used in the water as they can in the air, but the 5G frequences can be used in the air and penetrate just a little bit of the skin which is just enough to image somebody.

 

[nikcers]

Why do yiu think the government military is advising the Trump administration not to partner with countries with Chinese 5G

 

[ATruepatriot]

For people like me who live in the middle of nowhere, where there's only 4-6 houses per mile of road? The difference we notice won't be spectacular.

Worse than that, if they make it the standard across the board like they did 3G and then 4G you wont have any coverage at all. The transmit wattage is much less and will require many more towers to be installed to even provide the coverage rural folks like us have now. And they are just not going to spend the money to add these towers. The last thing AT&T and Verizon and carriers give a crap about is rural folks. They would rather not even have to deal with us at all, and if they could they would just shut all rural off so that they don't have to maintain those towers for just a few customers let alone add anymore to provide 5G coverage. So what will happen is they will have only 5G "service packages" available and rural folks like us will have to pay it just to get service at all even though we will not have 5G capability. I have dealt with these companies for many many years now as a rural customer and I have their extortion and discriminatory business model down to a science.