'5G Just Got Weird' (ieee.org) 132
SuperKendall (Slashdot reader #25,149) shared this review of the recent 5G standards codified by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in Release 16 (finalized on July 3).
"5G just got weird," writes IEEE Spectrum: 4G and other earlier generations of cellular focused on just that: cellular. But when 3GPP members started gathering to hammer out what 5G could be, there was interest in developing a wireless system that could do more than connect phones... One of the flashiest things in Release 16 is V2X, short for "Vehicle to Everything." In other words, using 5G for cars to communicate with each other and everything else around them... The 3GPP standards bring those benchmarks into the realm of gigabytes per second, 99.999 percent reliability, and just a few milliseconds.
Matthew Webb, a 3GPP delegate for Huawei and the other rapporteur for the 3GPP item on V2X, adds that Release 16 also introduces a new technique called sidelinking. Sidelinks will allow 5G-connected vehicles to communicate directly with one another, rather than going through a cell-tower intermediary... Tseng says that sidelinking started as a component of the V2X work, but it can theoretically apply to any two devices that might need to communicate directly rather than go through a base station first. Factory robots are one example, or large-scale Internet of Things installations.
Some other "weird" highlights of the new 5G standards:
"5G just got weird," writes IEEE Spectrum: 4G and other earlier generations of cellular focused on just that: cellular. But when 3GPP members started gathering to hammer out what 5G could be, there was interest in developing a wireless system that could do more than connect phones... One of the flashiest things in Release 16 is V2X, short for "Vehicle to Everything." In other words, using 5G for cars to communicate with each other and everything else around them... The 3GPP standards bring those benchmarks into the realm of gigabytes per second, 99.999 percent reliability, and just a few milliseconds.
Matthew Webb, a 3GPP delegate for Huawei and the other rapporteur for the 3GPP item on V2X, adds that Release 16 also introduces a new technique called sidelinking. Sidelinks will allow 5G-connected vehicles to communicate directly with one another, rather than going through a cell-tower intermediary... Tseng says that sidelinking started as a component of the V2X work, but it can theoretically apply to any two devices that might need to communicate directly rather than go through a base station first. Factory robots are one example, or large-scale Internet of Things installations.
Some other "weird" highlights of the new 5G standards:
- "5G incorporates millimeter waves, which are higher frequency radio waves (30 to 300 GHz) that don't travel nearly as far as traditional cell signals. Millimeter waves means it will be possible to build a network just for an office building, factory, or stadium. At those scales, 5G could function essentially like Wi-Fi networks."
- "In past generations of cellular, three cell towers were required to triangulate where a phone was by measuring the round-trip distance of a signal from each tower. But 5G networks will be able to use the round-trip time from a single tower to locate a device."
- "Release 17 includes a work item on extended reality — the catch-all term for alternate reality and virtual reality technologies."
Did they mention? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as long as Bill Gates and George Soros can work out how to put autism in the vaccine, everything will be back to normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you rotate it the right way, though. The other way is a strange treatise on how all the gummy bears in the universe are actually sentient creatures.
Just No. Not with modern security. (Score:1)
More radiation too.
Re: (Score:3)
That actually happened, although it infected the person using the phone rather than the phone itself. Basically it's one of those memetic transmission viruses that has loss of intelligence as one of the symptoms. Some people are immune or at least resistant to the virus.
Someone who is infected is much more likely to believe what they see on their personal glowing rectangle,
alternate reality We're living it! Without 5G (Score:1)
But these cars talking to each other. I don't think that's safe.They could be conspiring against us useless carbon units. Really, what do they need us for?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry - Skynet isn't scheduled to be deployed until 7G.
Re:alternate reality We're living it! Without 5G (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry - Skynet isn't scheduled to be deployed until 7G.
I'm waiting for 640G -- that should be enough for anyone, even our new robot overlords. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Good job - but we were looking for a Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman's hot grits.
Classical /. memeing (Score:2)
I for one, welcome the return of our old-people meme-overlords who are the only one in South Korea who still meme on /..
All our bases are belong to them.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, 5G networks you!
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to offer a car analogy, but now I realize TFS covers it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, what do they need us for?
Maintenance. Even EVs need bearings and bushings.
Re: alternate reality We're living it! Without 5G (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I suspect this has been used as an argument against peer to peer phones. That is speculation though but it does make you wonder why mobile phones aren't supporting peer to peer.
Triangulation (Score:2)
"In past generations of cellular, three cell towers were required to triangulate where a phone was by measuring the round-trip distance of a signal from each tower. But 5G networks will be able to use the round-trip time from a single tower to locate a device."
No, three cell towers are not required to triangulate... only two.
You can't locate a device in a two-dimensional space with any accuracy with only one tower unless that tower has discrete antennas with VERY VERY narrow degree of coverage. For example if you had 360 antennas one degree apart, you can get pretty good if the signal is close, but if you have 6 antennas (like 1G-4G) then you can narrow it down to 60 degrees... which is a huge swath of area, the further you are.
Further, with the "low latency" ca
Re: (Score:2)
I just signed into my account to post the very same thing. I'm not clear how this is possible in a typical installation. If you're using some type of dynamic beam forming such that you know what direction the antenna is aimed,, then I could see using the round-trip time to figure out the distance and thus calculate the location, but that assumes you're not utilizing a reflection instead. (Or, worse, more than one.) That's more likely the higher you go, and you can't really do that type of thing at lower
Re:Triangulation (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work on location tech back in the 90s, and one project in our group was getting location of a sat-phone handset (I think this was relating to the newly launched Iridium network). A handset might be only visible to one satellite, but obtaining location was still possible, due to the satellite moving (this method doesn't work with geosynchronous sat-phones). Over a period of time, the satellite moves w.r.t the handset, so with at least two round-trip-time readings, and if you know the location of the satellite, you can get the handset location. Unfortunately that doesn't work for a moving handset in the same way, so this single-tower-location must be using something else (as said, probably beamforming to work out direction + RTT for distance).
WFIW, triangulation is literally taking three angles...
Re: Triangulation (Score:2)
Triangulation is taking three angles
No, it's using a triangle to determine location. You only need to take two angles if you know the length of a side.
Re: Triangulation (Score:2)
You draw a circle from point 1 with a radius of the known distance. Draw one from point two with the distance from that point, the circles intersect in two places, and then a third distance from a third point eliminates one of the two intersects.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of spheres (not circles) in 3 dimensions.
But if you are on a 2-dimensional surface (such as the surface of the earth) then you need two directions from two points with a known location (and thus baseline) to determine the location of interest. Two distances would almost work -- you'd have some mirror-ambiguities for the position related to the baseline and its bisector normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, strike the bisector normal. The mirror-ambiguity is only wrt the baseline.
Re: Triangulation (Score:2)
Both get you a location, but I've never heard the term (knowingly) to refer to locating a point with 2 directions.
Re: (Score:3)
5G uses MIMO phased array antennas. Direction is known by the transmitter/receiver by looking at the phase difference between the multiple antennas. Not sure how it would work with wavelengths shorter than the antenna spacing but I'm sure it would use a similar technique as laser rangefinders.
Once you know the direction the round trip time of flight is all you need for decent accuracy location.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there was any suggestion that the MIMO antennas would do any triangulation. The MIMO would be used to determine direction-only. I believe ping-and-response round trip time would be used to calculate distance.
Interesting note: You could spoof a greater distance by tweaking your own unit to delay responses, and you might be able to spoof a shorter distance if you could sufficiently predict the incoming signal.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Of course 5G isn't exactly the same. It doesn't rely on the pulse response like radar or a laser range finder does. Instead of that they'll get a time stamped response from all the devices that communicate with it. But still, this should show people that tracking a target using what on the surface appears to be only a singular antenna, does work. And we've been using this te
Re: (Score:2)
No, three cell towers are not required to triangulate... only two.
Three towers is required for a unique location, if all you know is distance (with only two distance measurements you get two possible locations because the distance maps out a circle around each cell tower, and circles intersect at either 2 or 0 points on a plane). 5G uses some beamforming and MIMO techniques to measure both distance and direction, so it only needs a single tower. With a phased array, you don't need individual antennas to have high angular resolution, you can use interferometry to make prec
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't locate a device in a two-dimensional space with any accuracy with only one tower unless"
With the unless being your definition.
BLuetooth already does this with a single antenna in a box the size of a wifi access point. Sure, that antenna is not a single radiator. But so what?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they're supposed to use beam steering many times per second to best reach individual phones, AKA SDMA [wikipedia.org] and related.
Huh (Score:3, Funny)
Like UDP (Score:2)
So is it safe to say these "sidelinks" would be more like UDP than TCP? Just broadcast packets spewed out there to be forwarded?
Re: Like UDP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So is it safe to say these "sidelinks" would be more like UDP than TCP? Just broadcast packets spewed out there to be forwarded?
You can rest assured, the security issues will not be sorted out until long after (if ever) the time that the physical and MAC layers are defined.
V2V (Score:5, Interesting)
What could possibly go wrong with such setup, right?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It is curious to relate but the paranoia and FUD about technology extensions does not exist in much of the world outside the USA. Does this mean that flying cars and next generation tech will be developed elsewhere? Interesting.
Re:V2V (Score:4, Insightful)
If that was true the US would have implemented GDPR-like laws long ago. Look at Germany for an idea of what a country that really, really values privacy looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
GDPR is another huge government regulation, a lot like HIPAA, and that works against freedom.
Whose freedom are you talking about here? People, or corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the cops will catch you speeding with their passive receivers. I mean my car won't look like yours but they won't know that.
On the Inter^H^H^H^H^H freeway, no one knows you're a dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like building a jamming device that spams hundreds of random speeds would be fun. But I assume that signed keys or something similar would be used for a protocol like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Good news is that it will probably never take off. The rate at which lidar and vision systems are getting cheaper and smaller means that by the time they figure out how to make a compatible V2V system it will already be redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:V2V (Score:4, Insightful)
law enforcement only need to have a passive receiver to write speeding tickets.
Perfect. Finally. If you want to drive on a race track then drive on a damn race track. Your ability to get away with breaking the law and putting eveyone else at risk should not depend on the attentiveness of police.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as was seen with automatic traffic cameras, cities will artificially lower speed limits to catch impatient people, or people trying to get to work on time, or whatever. 25 mph for everywhere at all times, or else you will fund the police department with your fines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why they are set are utterly irrelevant. Obeying them is a legal requirement for driving your car, and fuckwits who think they are above the law regardless if that law was set by an engineer or a policy maker should just hand their license in.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't agree with a speed limit then the way to change it is to start a petition, gather names, and take it to council. Having a civil engineer create a report stating that the road/street could support a higher speed limit would also be helpful.
Driving through the zone at a higher speed, risking a speeding ticket, is not the proper way to protest what you perceive to be an improperly zoned street speed limit.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to stop pretending that every speed limit is
Re: (Score:2)
but if I am driving in the middle of nowhere, encounter one of these 55 to 35 cash-grab speed traps it is not feasible.
Have you ever considered not breaking the law? Or do you just enjoy giving voluntary tax donations to the government?
you frame it as "protest" when most of speeding is not intentional - you drive natural speed limit
Is "natural speed limit" some euphemism for "the law doesn't apply to me because I'm better"? It certainly sounds like it. The local government thanks you dearly for your completely voluntary contribution to their development fund. Unfortunately this donation is not tax deductible.
You need to stop pretending that every speed limit is reasonable
Nope. Every speed limit however slow is reasonable. It was a condition of driving on the road that you follow the
Re: (Score:2)
You need to stop pretending that every speed limit is reasonable
Nope. Every speed limit however slow is reasonable
We are not ever going to agree. Thankfully, your position is demonstrably and very obviously absurd so I don't have spend time arguing anything else built on this faulty premise.
Have you ever considered not breaking the law? Or do you just enjoy giving voluntary tax donations to the government?
"voluntary tax donations to the government" - how can you reconcile your absolutist "this is the law" views with such statement? If speed limits are "tax", then how can you propose that speed limits are just law? Also, if this is about generating revenue, then everyone following spee
Re:V2V (Score:4, Insightful)
Absurd. Speed limits are often set for the sole purpose of generating revenue and not according to road engineering designs or safety concerns.
Which is why automatic 100% enforcement is ideal. As long as 99% of drivers get away with speeding the cops have free reign to abuse their power. If enforcement is automatic and issues tickets to 100% of speeders then the voters will have no choice but to make it an election year issue to change the speed limits to match the actual driving speeds that the majority of the population believes are acceptable.
Working on it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
law enforcement only need to have a passive receiver to write speeding tickets.
You mean, like a speed camera?
Re: (Score:2)
Just great. (Score:2)
One of the flashiest things in Release 16 is V2X, short for "Vehicle to Everything." In other words, using 5G for cars to communicate with each other and everything else around them..
Now my car can fake get/spread COVID-19 from 5G too [vox.com].
I don't want my car wirelessly connected (Score:3)
Laptops have had 'RF kill' switches for a long time now. Cars should have the same thing: a switch that kills all wireless connectivity, one that can't be overridden.
It should be up to the driver whether their vehicle has the ability to connect wirelessly to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
What will you do when all cars are required to be connected to a network to use public roads?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. Why won't it happen?
Re:I don't want my car wirelessly connected (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
And how is requiring specific 'safety features' in a car a violation of free speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Not that I'm in favor of it, but human drivers are pretty horrendous, at least in the United States anyway. I can see them requiring networked vehicles at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
For what reason? How do "networked vehicles" solve the "human drivers are pretty horrendous" problem? They seem largely unrelated.
Re: (Score:2)
Networked vehicles can know where all other cars are on the road, know their heading, velocity, etc. Perfect for automated driving.
Re: (Score:2)
"Driving is a privilege, not a right."
A cheap distinction without meaning. The fact that driving is done on public roads makes driving a privilege, it doesn't mean that the government can discriminate or place arbitrary burdens on citizens. Without a government, there would be no public roads so "driving as a right" is moot. In the US people have a right to pursuit of happiness and, in the vast majority of cases, US society is built around driving.
Also, who says mandatory connectivity is a "safety featur
Re: (Score:2)
Your pursuit of happiness is limited by a bunch of other laws about what you're not allowed to do. Start campaigning against the law saying you can't kill whoever you want to.
Re: I don't want my car wirelessly connected (Score:2)
Its already too late for that: https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
*solder center conductor to shield*
So much for GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
The article said absolutely nothing about cars being networked. From the article:
"A Ford spokesperson later told Business Insider that in general, GPS units in Ford cars are not routinely pinging out their whereabouts as customers drive around. Rather, Ford cars have several on-board services such as "Sync Services Directions" (a navigation device that works with drivers' phones) and 911 Assist, which users have to switch on and opt into. And employers can use a service called "Crew Chief" to monitor their
In the Bigger picture (Score:1)
6G is right behind 5G
Who really needs all this data transfer speed?
If people are to be tracking chipped (plenty of mounting evidence of this intent) .... go figure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] & https://patentscope.wipo.int/s... [wipo.int] (tracking your body movements?)
China already has a social credit status restricting what people can do and go to. They can even arrest you if you have your phone off to long.
No everyone has a cell phone, so what is the obvious solution?
Now they are talking of the possible
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell me how much bandwidth I need.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, 6G promises multi-terabit bandwidth. Does your mobile device, or even your regular PC, have that kind of bandwidth, even on the PCI-E lanes, or even for the system as a whole?
What happened to Wifi adhoc mode? (Score:2)
"two devices that might need to communicate directly rather than go through a base station first."
Just like Wifi adhoc mode. What happened to it. I recall old Windows Wifi drivers had the ability for Wifi adhoc connections between two clients, without no base station involvement. I don't see references to it anymore.
If two 802.11*-equipped cars -- that have never 'seen' each other -- drive down a highway, can they automatically setup a Wifi adhoc network and exchange data?
Re: (Score:2)
>If two 802.11*-equipped cars -- that have never 'seen' each other -- drive down a highway, can they automatically setup a Wifi adhoc network and exchange data?
Yes. If they both have a higher layer protocol that permits such a thing. The 802.11 protocol will support it. If you had some funky crypto like some bizarre massive scale IBE (read that at is ain't going to happen), you could arrange for them to have keys ready before they talk. With a trusted third party (like *gulp* the government), you could u
Re: (Score:2)
Ah thanks -- d you know of any higher level protocols in use in the wild?
I wasn't even aware of IBE (identity based encryption). Thanks for the pointer.
Cameras and licence plate recognition mean an IBE scheme can use the license plate as the address. Or DMVs could work just like a CA -- renewing a car's communication certificates every year as part of vehicle registration.
If all a vehicle does is broadcast safety messages "Plate MMH 443 at position X: accelerating on vector V at rate C " -- transponder st
Re: (Score:2)
There's an 802 spec for making announcements over 802 (802.21). This is primarily conceived so that you could (a) listen to an 802.11 AP and know what to do next (I.E. bother to connect, expect to find internet, need to use a bloody interstitial) and (b) Know if it is fit for handing over from a heterogenous network type like a cellphone connection. I should know, I was one of the founders of that spec.
A secondary concept is that you have an ordering problem in secure communications between previously unpai
WLAN Adhoc mode is used by the Freifunk movement (Score:2)
The Freifunk movement in Germany (and probably other places) uses it to mesh routers together by running special routing protocols over them. Usually they also open up a managed network for the clients to connect to.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the pointer - just googled them -- it's great to know of the work they're doing. By managed network, did you mean the 'VPN to Sweden' mentioned in Wikipedia, or just a generic managed network that enables communication between peers?
I wonder what the association delays would be for a new peer to mesh with a Freifunk router. So if multiple cars, each with a Freifunk router onboard, were driving up down the highway, how fast would the peers associate/disassociate?
Re: (Score:2)
Well since they use adhoc mode they don't disassociate or associate.
The managed mode is only used for connecting clients. the "VPN to Sweden" is just one way to do Internet uplinks. Such an uplink makes the network immediately useful for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Google. At least on Android. Android 4 included a re-written wifi driver with no support for adhoc. Even though "Issue #82" was open for years, and was one of their most upvoted bugs.
Cisco. They stack every vote at the IEEE they have an interested in. And they are only interested in selling infrastructure. The initial adhoc spec is terrible, it's a thrown together afterthought. Building a stable adhoc mesh network essentially requires you to break it. 802.11s was kinda supposed to be a replacement. The spe
I see (Score:2)
So the cellular companies have been sitting on bandwidth intended for vehicle coordination. They were about to lose it, but now we have promised rolled into 5g.
I have a feeling vehicular interconnection alerts still won’t manifest.
The idea was for things like crash detection, road congestion and all manner of p2p would be facilitated. Much like rural broadband funding this has all been made under promises that will never be delivered upon.
It got weird from the start... (Score:3)
... when they did ridiculous things like changing every signaling element to a new, but nearly identical one running over HTTP/2.
On the other hand, all the improvements on the radio side could easily be included into LTE.
Perhaps in the future we will see "5G" just like "3G", a standard with very little useful improvement that was mostly meant to push through patented technologies (like CDMA). Just like the "3G" standards its gap might be closed in rather quickly from both sides. On 2G we got EDGE, while 4G finally brought usable Internet.
I hope v2x is secure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are going to be frustrating enough for most people when they actually follow the rules of the road such as driving the speed limit! :) Can you imagine once AVs start getting to be a fair percentage of vehicles on the road and you have the rest of the drivers whom are used to going a couple of kph (or mph depending on where you are) above the limit stuck behind a line of AVs that are sticking exactly to the limit? Especially someone whom is late for work? Or someone in in AV and wou
X == Everything? (Score:2)
Wow... and here I was thinking UX was a stretch.
Ignorant article (Score:2)
This isn't a 5G vs 4G thing. Even 4G started massively focusing beyond the scope of the phone. Hell One-to-many simulcasting was introduced in 3GPP Release 13 5 years ago. And that was built on changes such as QoS and prioritization introduced in Release 9 back in 2008.
Basically from the moment 4G was ratified in the late 90s the 3GPP was looking to expand it beyond phones and cellular data.
like Wi-Fi networks (Score:2)
"5G incorporates millimeter waves, which are higher frequency radio waves (30 to 300 GHz) that don't travel nearly as far as traditional cell signals. Millimeter waves means it will be possible to build a network just for an office building, factory, or stadium. At those scales, 5G could function essentially like Wi-Fi networks."
Meaning, it will even work worse through walls?
that's cute (Score:2)
that's cute and all but what would be nice is if I could get some basic fucking phone service in the middle of the god damned city, looking specificly at you ATT how come your map shows all blue but nowhere I go do I get more than 1 bar of service and the only place I get 4G is at my house, where I don't fuckin need it
If you live in Silicon Valley (Score:2)
Here's the problem with this: it looks great on paper and works fine in the ivory tower of Silicon Valley or some other major city but once you get out into rural areas, this stuff ain't gonna work. And in a lot of places, rural American might only be 20 miles outside a major city.
Fun 5G future... (Score:3)
Peer2Peer, aka walkie-talkie, just became a viable plus more than Voice-cases. Mesh becomes ubiquitous. TacTek private frequency use-case for Fire, Police and importantly Emergency where any 5G device can be enabled. No more dedicated handheld hardware thru a gatekeeper server. Could be democratizing tech or Hyper surveillance. Big decade ahead.
Peer2Starlink for battlefield mapping, localized ID and geo-fencing scenarios.
Re:What about Covid? (Score:5, Funny)
The frequencies used in 5G have been proven to cause anxiety, aggression and fear in tin foil hat site readers.
Re: (Score:2)
Want tinfoil, try this. People always talk about how emmited radiation can damage DNA cause it to mutate. Interesting does no one care about flying critters and their various infectious agents landing too close to the transmission towers and getting a DNA altering dose, not the flying critters, they just die, but their passengers, the various contagious agents.
It seems most of the latest infections that have caused humanity problems have all come from infectious agents of flying critters. Wuhan one of the
Welcome to the world of non-ionising radiation (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
People always talk about how emmited radiation can damage DNA cause it to mutate.
No, people don't talk about that because it doesn't happen. Radio waves (EMF below the frequency of light) do not cause ionizing radiation and therefor do not create mutations. If this were true, all the cellphones held up to our heads would've caused mutations in our brains. Non-ionizing radiation can produce localized heating in tissue, but certainly isn't going to cause mutations in all the squirrels and bats around a transmission tower.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't quite right. Ionising radiation can cause direct DNA damage through strand breaks, thymine dimers etc. But that doesn't mean the converse is true: that non-ionising radiation is safe. It can cause a different set of problems. Millimetre-wave radiation has been shown to be sufficiently energetic to completely unwind long strands of DNA. That could lead to unintended expression of genes which were supposed to be suppressed. If that's an oncogene, or a suppressor or enhancer related to the co
Re: (Score:2)
Millimetre-wave radiation has been shown to be sufficiently energetic to completely unwind long strands of DNA.
No, the frequencies that do that are 500nm and above..... that's WAY above mm wave.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, no. 500nm is visible light and is energetic enough to break covalent bonds. albeit not as well as UV. Millimetre wave radiation has plenty enough energy to break multiple hydrogen bonds. This isn't new.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. I pointed out it is visible light and high frequency that an do unwinding of DNA, that's science.
There is no unwinding of DNA by mm waves.
Flying isn't the main drive in zoonosis. (Score:5, Informative)
A little bit of "hungry troll feeding" because it's a good opportunity to speak about actually relevant subjects:
Interesting does no one care about flying critters and their various infectious agents {...} It seems most of the latest infections that have caused humanity problems have all come from infectious agents of flying critters.
It might come as a surprise to you, but pigs [wikipedia.org] DO NOT fly. That the criters that causes zoonosis happen to fly has only little to do with the main mechanisms causing the epidemics.
The factors happen to be:
- being an animal that is massively farmed at industrial scales (because it is consumed a lot), which causes a vast population of hosts and very dense hotspots where viruses could spread easily: that's why swines, chickens, etc. have all contributed to various outbursts of epidemics.
- animals whose habitat is destroyed by the expansion of human population and their various needs (farm lands, etc.) and who as a consequence of that come more in contact with humans increasing the chance of an infection getting the chance to jump species: bats are a prime exemple in china, with lots of the rural population exposed to multiple bat viruses. SARS-CoV-2 just happens to be the one that successfully managed to propagate after jumping species, but it's not an isolated accident, just a "more successful than average" (most of the viruses which jump species are poorly adapted to the new host and il not necessarily manage to propagate further).
From that point of view being a "flying" criter helps a tiny bit, simply because it increase the chances that the critter will is able to just "move around" until it's forced into contact with excessive human population, as opposed to getting steemrolled by the human expansion and going extinct because it's a critter that doesn't get around much.
Then even there, the contribution of "flying" is dwarfed by another much important contributor to epidemics:
population density.
Which enables me to segues into the next point...
Wuhan one of the first places to mass deploy 5G and voila, {...} source Wuhan.
Ob. XKCD reference [xkcd.com] about heat maps which are basically population density maps.
Congratulation, you've succesfully reported two signs that Wuhan is a densely populated area:
- there's a big population so new technology is likely to be developed here because it's more profitable. Even more so for a technology that is specially geared toward high density of devices and thus even more likely to see widespread deployement in densely populated area (as opposed to Starlink receiver which *ALSO* use non-ionizing radio waves, *BUT* are specifically targetting hard-to-reach remote area with low density due to the deployed technology).
- there's also a bit population of humans, meaning that if there's a virus emerging into human with an ability to spread, it's going to spread massively fast.
- this human population has been growing fast and has been encroaching onto wild species's habitat increasing chance of human-bat interaction and increasing chance of virus jumping species.
Contrast with South Korea or Taiwan which also are densely populated are also places where new high-tech radio system are deployed...
but didn't see much epidemic, thanks mostly to very intense measure to diminish propagation.
I seriously think that all transmission towers should be covered by plastic domes to exclude the presence of flying critters and their various contagions.
Actually protecting radio emiter is a good idea but has nothing to do with the ludicruous idea that non-ionizing radiation could have some mutationnal effect on DNA, and everything to do that this is modern expensive equipement and you would like to avoid getting it destroyed by wild life.
The alternate is to keep seeing m
Re:What about Covid? (Score:4, Informative)
Emitted electromagnetic radiation that can damage DNA as in ionizing the atoms by knocking out electrons from their respective valence energy levels requires a certain amount of energy in each photon. And we only get into that kind of energy levels with well below 250 nanometre waves (. We do get that kind of energy from our parent star, which damages skin an can cause skin cancer.
5G however is ~6mm waves and longer. That's just not enough energy in a single photon to interact ionize an atom.
The worst that can happen with those kinds of energies, if your body absorbs a high enough intensity is that you're cooked, similar to what happens in a microwave oven.
In conclusion your very own sun is way more dangerous at altering the DNA of those "flying critters" than those glorified low power microwave ovens.
Re: What about Covid? (Score:2)