Peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) is a real thing for EEs designing RF power amplifiers. OFDM modulation produces signals that end up with a high peak power vs. average power. WiFi and 4G protocols are both based on OFDM, so this is nothing new. There’s a lot of info online about PAPR and how to reduce it, but it’s geared towards easing the burden on the engineers designing hardware, not for any real health reasons.
I’m not sure where the OP’s link gets the “1000” PAPR ratio from, and the paper it links to talks about timescales of 30 seconds and longer. The peak power spikes are far shorter than that with OFDM (more like microseconds). Also, the proposed 5G protocols have a PAPR that’s not much higher (if any) than 4G (e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPE4XNysSpM, good info unfortunately in video format).
Anyway, like engineer_comp_geek said, the page is bunk.
Yep, I definitely understand the concept. It’s relating it to health issues that I can’t find any meaningful connection with, at least not without some specific information about what either the peak or the average power level is. Stated alone like that, it seems kinda meaningless to me.
Most interesting is that while RT is trying to tell us how horrible it is, Putin is busy rolling it out in Russia. When asked about this, an RT official said that they only worry about US things.
Putin saying it is bad pretty much ensures 5G is good.
I hope everyone remembers how cellphone were going to fry our brains.
What’s really amazing is that the people who condemn cell phone radiation, emp / emf from power transmission and other such, are also big supporters of an electro-magnetic, or ultra-sonic device that stimulates broken bones to heal.
Just more Homeopathetic* crap.
Most definitely yes.
Increased neck, eye and thumb strain resulting from the further increased usage of highspeed devices displaying high data rate p0rn, movies and other trivia.
Also increased vehicular accidents due to people not only texting, not only talking, but actually watching movies while driving.
Aside from these, not so much.
The frequencies used for 5g have significantly less absorption and activation in organic matter than those used for normal gsm cellphone and 3-4g.
So there might be a slight improvement in health impact near the towers, but there is quite insufficient longterm data yet to determine this with any certainty.
For those interested in science and data (relates to the previously linked review of NIR impact with a number of them showing increased oxidative stress or DNA break/damage):
If anything, I’d expect 5G to have even less health impact than the (already-negligible) impact of 4G, because the smaller cell size means you can use less power.
The analog TV channels were about 6 MHz wide, so all 12 of the VHF channels together total about 72 MHz, and even this is not a continuous block of spectrum. The most common 5G signal width that I see in my job is 100 MHz wide, for a single carrier signal, and these can be ganged together. 5G at mm-wave defines up to 400 MHz wide single carriers, and those can be ganged as well. There’s just not enough spectrum at the lower frequencies to give the bandwidth (and data rates) they’re looking to get.
I too am concerned that there will be a 5G bust when consumers realize the challenges of the signal propagation. A year or so ago I was working, getting a 5G signal in a hotel room from the base station just 100 m away, and we were getting a decent signal. Then we closed the sliding glass door, and the signal just went away, like completely.
For the near-term, 5G will only work in “non-standalone” mode, where you have to have a 4G connection established, and if you request a large amount of data, the system can send it to you on the 5G radio if you have that.
What percentage of scientists want a moratorium, and what percentage of that group has expertise on the subject? You could just as accurately say that “scientists around the world reject climate change”, while leaving out that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not.
I had never heard of the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health (which ran one of the linked articles warning of potential 5G dangers), but I see the same journal has run articles treating “multiple chemical sensitivity” as a real disease. :dubious: