Safe Distance From 5G?

[dfspcc20]

Is there a distance considered "safe" from the nearest 5G tower to ones' house?

These towers are popping up like mushrooms around me. Mostly lining the main roads, but some are almost literally being put in peoples' back yards.

I know the signal drops off rapidly with distance.
I'm at ~300ft now to the nearest tower, but who knows how long that will last. There are a couple utility right-of-ways on and near my property, so I'm assuming those are fair game for future towers.

Similarly, other than extremely rural places, what might be a good location (re: absence of 5G) to move to if one were considering it? With more permanent working-from-home options becoming more normalized due to COVID-19, my geographic options do open up quite a bit. Here it seems like the more upper-class neighborhoods are getting the "benefits" of 5G just as often, if not more so, as the more run-down places.

 

[Gone Peating]

I think anything under 300 ft or so is when it starts becoming a danger. Where do you live?

 

[Diokine]

It depends on the power level of the transmitter, where its pointing, how it's oriented, and what frequency it's operating on. I've noticed a lot of Verizon towers going up, they are clusters of 3 new-radio technology microcells operating at I think 28ghz, with power levels up to 10,000 milliwatt total. The higher the frequency (most 4G is 2.4ghz downlink with some 900mhz uplink, depends on carrier etc.,) the more subject the signal is to attenuation by walls and other building features. So 5G being at higher frequencies tends to get fairly attenuated inside a house, however there are times where you can get echos, reflections, and diffraction patterns of radio frequency energy that can create hot spots depending on building geometry, etc.

There is a significant difference in line of site vs non line of site irradiance. The path loss in decibels is typically how a radio frequency engineer would calculate signal attenuation, but its not very useful for considering biological effects. There are other effects to consider with 5G technology, because the antennas are quite sophisticated and use techniques to shape the beam and control power densities.

This paper here is one of the better that I've found modeling the effects of distance vs absorbed power or specific absorption rate, two metrics for analysis.

Analysis of Human EMF Exposure in 5G Cellular Systems

This model uses an intersite distance (ISD) of 200 meters (600 feet) for a 5G UMi (microcell architecture) which is probably close to what you'd find in the field.

In this model, at 100 meters from the site, there is around 2 decades of attenuation for 5g frequencies. Most of the towers we're seeing going up (on street lights and such) are microcells. So if we said that you are 100 meters away from the cell (I think this is line of sight,) you will absorb around 100x less radio frequency energy than if you were hugging the transmitter. According to this model the absorption rate would drop below FCC guidelines for .1-6ghz at around 6 meters distance. I wouldn't trust that for a second but that's what the FCC says.

SAR = specific absorption rate

I know this is pretty confusing information, but bottom line is that if you are indoors, 100 meters is probably "generally safe" in the short term from 5G signals. Despite understanding this rationally, I was pretty upset when they put a verizon 5G tower about 100 meters from my house.

Ultimately the data isn't quite there to conclusively demonstrate the ill-effects of 5G signals. Intuitively I think that there are effects that are difficult to account for in modelling and analysis, and it is probably prudent to do whatever one can to reduce exposure. Would it be wise to have a faraday cage or shielding in your bedroom? Probably.

 

[dfspcc20]

I think anything under 300 ft or so is when it starts becoming a danger. Where do you live?

I'm near Dallas.

It depends on the power level of the transmitter, where its pointing, how it's oriented, and what frequency it's operating on. I've noticed a lot of Verizon towers going up, they are clusters of 3 new-radio technology microcells operating at I think 28ghz, with power levels up to 10,000 milliwatt total. The higher the frequency (most 4G is 2.4ghz downlink with some 900mhz uplink, depends on carrier etc.,) the more subject the signal is to attenuation by walls and other building features. So 5G being at higher frequencies tends to get fairly attenuated inside a house, however there are times where you can get echos, reflections, and diffraction patterns of radio frequency energy that can create hot spots depending on building geometry, etc.

There is a significant difference in line of site vs non line of site irradiance. The path loss in decibels is typically how a radio frequency engineer would calculate signal attenuation, but its not very useful for considering biological effects. There are other effects to consider with 5G technology, because the antennas are quite sophisticated and use techniques to shape the beam and control power densities.

This paper here is one of the better that I've found modeling the effects of distance vs absorbed power or specific absorption rate, two metrics for analysis.

Analysis of Human EMF Exposure in 5G Cellular Systems

This model uses an intersite distance (ISD) of 200 meters (600 feet) for a 5G UMi (microcell architecture) which is probably close to what you'd find in the field.

In this model, at 100 meters from the site, there is around 2 decades of attenuation for 5g frequencies. Most of the towers we're seeing going up (on street lights and such) are microcells. So if we said that you are 100 meters away from the cell (I think this is line of sight,) you will absorb around 100x less radio frequency energy than if you were hugging the transmitter. According to this model the absorption rate would drop below FCC guidelines for .1-6ghz at around 6 meters distance. I wouldn't trust that for a second but that's what the FCC says.

View attachment 18733
SAR = specific absorption rate

View attachment 18734

I know this is pretty confusing information, but bottom line is that if you are indoors, 100 meters is probably "generally safe" in the short term from 5G signals. Despite understanding this rationally, I was pretty upset when they put a verizon 5G tower about 100 meters from my house.

Ultimately the data isn't quite there to conclusively demonstrate the ill-effects of 5G signals. Intuitively I think that there are effects that are difficult to account for in modelling and analysis, and it is probably prudent to do whatever one can to reduce exposure. Would it be wise to have a faraday cage or shielding in your bedroom? Probably.

Wow, thanks for that awesome write up.

There are both Verizon and AT&T towers going up here. Each has it's own distinct look, and they're definitely not trying to hide them or anything. I know there are informational stickers/plaques on each tower. I'll see if I can get a picture to see if they provide any useful data like frequency and power.

What would one look for in an EMF meter that would be sensitive to 5G (as well as 4G and previous generations)?

 

[dfspcc20]

I measured with Google Maps. Assuming it's correct, I'm at ~500 ft, as the crow flies, to the nearest tower. For now anyway...

 

[Vinny]

It depends on the power level of the transmitter, where its pointing, how it's oriented, and what frequency it's operating on. I've noticed a lot of Verizon towers going up, they are clusters of 3 new-radio technology microcells operating at I think 28ghz, with power levels up to 10,000 milliwatt total. The higher the frequency (most 4G is 2.4ghz downlink with some 900mhz uplink, depends on carrier etc.,) the more subject the signal is to attenuation by walls and other building features. So 5G being at higher frequencies tends to get fairly attenuated inside a house, however there are times where you can get echos, reflections, and diffraction patterns of radio frequency energy that can create hot spots depending on building geometry, etc.

There is a significant difference in line of site vs non line of site irradiance. The path loss in decibels is typically how a radio frequency engineer would calculate signal attenuation, but its not very useful for considering biological effects. There are other effects to consider with 5G technology, because the antennas are quite sophisticated and use techniques to shape the beam and control power densities.

This paper here is one of the better that I've found modeling the effects of distance vs absorbed power or specific absorption rate, two metrics for analysis.

Analysis of Human EMF Exposure in 5G Cellular Systems

This model uses an intersite distance (ISD) of 200 meters (600 feet) for a 5G UMi (microcell architecture) which is probably close to what you'd find in the field.

In this model, at 100 meters from the site, there is around 2 decades of attenuation for 5g frequencies. Most of the towers we're seeing going up (on street lights and such) are microcells. So if we said that you are 100 meters away from the cell (I think this is line of sight,) you will absorb around 100x less radio frequency energy than if you were hugging the transmitter. According to this model the absorption rate would drop below FCC guidelines for .1-6ghz at around 6 meters distance. I wouldn't trust that for a second but that's what the FCC says.

View attachment 18733
SAR = specific absorption rate

View attachment 18734

I know this is pretty confusing information, but bottom line is that if you are indoors, 100 meters is probably "generally safe" in the short term from 5G signals. Despite understanding this rationally, I was pretty upset when they put a verizon 5G tower about 100 meters from my house.

Ultimately the data isn't quite there to conclusively demonstrate the ill-effects of 5G signals. Intuitively I think that there are effects that are difficult to account for in modelling and analysis, and it is probably prudent to do whatever one can to reduce exposure. Would it be wise to have a faraday cage or shielding in your bedroom? Probably.

Thanks

 

[BearWithMe]

They are hiding 5G transmitters in lamps, attires of buildings, bus stops, electrical substations, even trees... As long as there are ANY buildings, lamps and similar things around, you never know if you are near 5G transmitter or not.

Sorry.

 

[pro marker]

They are hiding 5G transmitters in lamps, attires of buildings, bus stops, electrical substations, even trees... As long as there are ANY buildings, lamps and similar things around, you never know if you are near 5G transmitter or not.

Sorry.

how the hell do you hide a transmitter in a tree? and why would you do that? the only place that would be effective is in a city, where the trees are usualy small.

 

[BearWithMe]

how the hell do you hide a transmitter in a tree? and why would you do that? the only place that would be effective is in a city, where the trees are usualy small.

They are placing 5G transmitters on palms in California.

 

[dfspcc20]

They are placing 5G transmitters on palms in California.

The ones from AT&T and Verizon that I've seen here, even the camouflaged ones, all have electric meters attached. Kind of a dead give-away if you see a street light or telephone pole with an electric meter.

Luckily I'm not in an area with lots of big buildings and billboards where I'd imagine they could be concealed better.

 

[BearWithMe]

The ones from AT&T and Verizon that I've seen here, even the camouflaged ones, all have electric meters attached. Kind of a dead give-away if you see a street light or telephone pole with an electric meter.

Luckily I'm not in an area with lots of big buildings and billboards where I'd imagine they could be concealed better.

Have seen a couple of pictures from US and was also surprised by this. Here in Europe, they are generally much smarter and more sneaky when hiding transmitters.

 

[BearWithMe]

@pro marker

Spoiler: Click for 5G tree images

 

[dfspcc20]

Here's an example of one of the towers here. They stand out like sore thumbs. Like I said, they are very close to people's houses.

 

[ariesincarnate]

Here's an example of one of the towers here. They stand out like sore thumbs. Like I said, they are very close to people's houses.

View attachment 18788

Blow it up.

 

[Lollipop2]

It depends on the power level of the transmitter, where its pointing, how it's oriented, and what frequency it's operating on. I've noticed a lot of Verizon towers going up, they are clusters of 3 new-radio technology microcells operating at I think 28ghz, with power levels up to 10,000 milliwatt total. The higher the frequency (most 4G is 2.4ghz downlink with some 900mhz uplink, depends on carrier etc.,) the more subject the signal is to attenuation by walls and other building features. So 5G being at higher frequencies tends to get fairly attenuated inside a house, however there are times where you can get echos, reflections, and diffraction patterns of radio frequency energy that can create hot spots depending on building geometry, etc.

There is a significant difference in line of site vs non line of site irradiance. The path loss in decibels is typically how a radio frequency engineer would calculate signal attenuation, but its not very useful for considering biological effects. There are other effects to consider with 5G technology, because the antennas are quite sophisticated and use techniques to shape the beam and control power densities.

This paper here is one of the better that I've found modeling the effects of distance vs absorbed power or specific absorption rate, two metrics for analysis.

Analysis of Human EMF Exposure in 5G Cellular Systems

This model uses an intersite distance (ISD) of 200 meters (600 feet) for a 5G UMi (microcell architecture) which is probably close to what you'd find in the field.

In this model, at 100 meters from the site, there is around 2 decades of attenuation for 5g frequencies. Most of the towers we're seeing going up (on street lights and such) are microcells. So if we said that you are 100 meters away from the cell (I think this is line of sight,) you will absorb around 100x less radio frequency energy than if you were hugging the transmitter. According to this model the absorption rate would drop below FCC guidelines for .1-6ghz at around 6 meters distance. I wouldn't trust that for a second but that's what the FCC says.

View attachment 18733
SAR = specific absorption rate

View attachment 18734

I know this is pretty confusing information, but bottom line is that if you are indoors, 100 meters is probably "generally safe" in the short term from 5G signals. Despite understanding this rationally, I was pretty upset when they put a verizon 5G tower about 100 meters from my house.

Ultimately the data isn't quite there to conclusively demonstrate the ill-effects of 5G signals. Intuitively I think that there are effects that are difficult to account for in modelling and analysis, and it is probably prudent to do whatever one can to reduce exposure. Would it be wise to have a faraday cage or shielding in your bedroom? Probably.

This is very helpful. Thank you.

 

[Lollipop2]

I'm near Dallas.

I live near downtown Dallas but shop at the Plano Whole Foods (Park/Preston). We use the tollway to drive there. Right after the lockdown for that 1-2 months when the roads were empty - dead - we noticed AT&T trucks along the tollway working with the tollway lights and cell towers. We knew they were setting up 5G. Did you happen to notice?

 

[Energizer]

Blow it up.

I wonder how quickly these would do the job.

 

[dfspcc20]

I live near downtown Dallas but shop at the Plano Whole Foods (Park/Preston). We use the tollway to drive there. Right after the lockdown for that 1-2 months when the roads were empty - dead - we noticed AT&T trucks along the tollway working with the tollway lights and cell towers. We knew they were setting up 5G. Did you happen to notice?

No, I haven't had to go that direction for months. Maybe on the bright side, I used to pay ~$200/month on tolls and gas, but since Covid that expense has pretty much evaporated.

 

[Lollipop2]

No, I haven't had to go that direction for months. Maybe on the bright side, I used to pay ~$200/month on tolls and gas, but since Covid that expense has pretty much evaporated.

I bet it did. It is easy to spend a lot on tolls in Dallas - especially the new express lanes. They are awesome to drive though

 

[SonOfEurope]

When will these psychopaths stop....