5G: The Trouble With the New Phone Network
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- Get a free copy of 80,000 Hours' in-depth career guide at 80000hours.org/sabine to get started planning a career that tackles one of the world's most pressing problems.
Correction to what I say at 15 mins 57 seconds: It's should be 3 orders of magnitude, not 30.
You'd think that technology and science make a good team, and most often that's true, but every once in a while they get into a big fight. One such case is the 5th generation of wireless networks, 5G for short, that's become a big headache for meteorologist because millimeter waves interfere with the weather forecast. On that occasion I also tell you about a recent review on the health effects of 5G and what 6G may bring.
💌 Sign up for my weekly science newsletter. It's free! ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👉 Support me on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📖 My new book "Existential Physics" is now on sale ➜ existentialphysics.com/
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
The estimate for the number of mobile devices is from here: www.statista.com/statistics/2...
The Cisco estimate for the 5G use is here:
newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsro...
The recent review on the health effects of 5G is here: www.nature.com/articles/s4137...
The call from the WHO for 5G studies is here:
www.who.int/news-room/article...
The figure for the forecast skill is from this article: www.nature.com/articles/natur...
The Jacobs quote from the federal hearing is from here: science.house.gov/hearings/th...
The two CTIA blogposts are here:
www.ctia.org/news/how-a-fake-...
www.ctia.org/news/the-24-ghz-...
The 2020 study from Rutgers about how 5G affects weather forecast is here: arxiv.org/abs/2008.13498
The 6G article on LifeWire which I quote is here: www.lifewire.com/6g-wireless-...
Many thanks to Jordi Busqué for helping with this video jordibusque.com/
00:00 Intro
00:48 Sponsor message
02:13 What's new about 5G?
03:56 Why is 5G controversial?
06:30 How 5G affects the weather forecast
10:00 Meteorologists are not happy
11:15 The other side of the story
14:08 6G
15:22 What's the lesson?
#science #technology 
Наука
I accidentally watched this at 360p and didn't notice till after it had finished. You don't need extreme high definition on a small screen.
I look all videos at 360p too, it's really suffisant. I look only video about on "age of empire" at 480p.
360p? Uh....no.
Speak for your self. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.
Most of things we are nowadays unable to give up I would have called pretty unnecessary 10 years ago. It's indeed needed a big change of perspective where finally we decide what we absolutely need.
5g isn't necessary for phones, i get 270mbps down, 40 up and 30ms at home on 4g, i have no idea how you'd need more
"I think everyone would be better off if the worries from scientists were taken more seriously in the design stage and not grumpingly acknowledged half through a global roll-out." Amen to that.
Companies don’t like naysayers.
Maybe the major 'companies' of the world need to burn
Some people refuse anything a scientist says, Earth is flat, the moon and sun are just lights on the dome, they say this all well watching hollow earth theory videos on a computer we have through development of science. People are DUMB
Thing is, if we didn't do things that were bad for us, we'd literally be living in the preindustrial revolution.
And while our modern stuff kills a LOT of people percentage wise, it also saves a LOT of lives.
Considering that the death rate for those 5 years old and you get was 30% in the Early 1800's(and that's just from the diseases we have vaccines for). Modern tech is an overall benefit.
For now anyway. Won't be long before it's not with how global warming is going.
@@Danielle-zq7kb Nor do political parties. Or governments. But sometimes, having a cautious type on the team (and listening to them) can avoid a lot of redo. And tragedy.
That quote. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”
especially for sportbikes above 100hp....
But Moni!!!
Unfortunately, the more popular one seems to be "better to plead for forgiveness than ask for permission".
@@auturgicflosculator2183 yeah we need all the ponies we can get traversing through waves of water and wind resistance!
I love Sabine, she has given me my biggest belly laugh this year !
3:00 "There's a reason they haven't been previously used for telecommunication, and it's not because millimetre waves are also used as goodbyes for in-laws."
The sneaky little wave… 😂
I thought that wave was only used on television. And now it turns out that it's a real thing?
dry humour
Shocking that a trade group disputes science that is inconvenient to the interests they represent. Just as shocking: US govt calls it "contentious" while choosing a side. And the side they chose (again, so shocked) is that of the business interest.
If scientists paid more taxes, they’d take the other side
@@JayVal90 If scientists paid more lobbyists, they’d take the other side
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair”
@@paulcooper8818 I wasn’t insulting scientists here 💀
The US gov chose corporate interest over the good of everyone? I'm socked, SHOCKED I say!
I think the difference between -20dBW and -55dBW is nearer 3 orders of magnitude than 30, as dB is 10 log10(x) where power ratios are concerned. Excellent video as always, though.
Regardless, it's meaningless wrt RF field strength.
@@StringerNews1 it is difference between 1000 more and 10000000000000000000000000000 more.
@@StringerNews1 No it isn't. Power scales quadratically with field strength (P=1/2*Ê^2/Z), so a factor of 1000 regarding power means a factor of about 30 regarding field strength
I'm not as clever... need to toy around to understand; -20dBW = 10'000 microWatt . . -55dBW = 3.16 microWatt . So -20 is 3000 times larger than -55 . . so yes, just above 3 order of magnitude.
@@Volodimar more what?
Your videos/ attitude gives me hope - that sanity and ‘clear ‘ thinking still exists! 🙏
Telecom companies don't want to provide the speed that 4G gives, instead they want to sell something new to the people using the speed card.
In 2013 we discovered I had a “terminal” case of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. My baseline PET scan, prior to treatment, showed a dense inguinal tumor the exact size and orientation of the antenna in my iPhone (per engineering teardown). I had always kepy my phone in my pants pocket juxtaposed to where we found the tumor. No one in the medical community wanted to report this black-and-white finding to state or federal regulatory agencies. The reason, they stated, was that the telecom industrial complex was too powerful and wealthy - nothing would come of it, other than risk to my doctors. I was fighting for life for several years, so we had no appetite to pursue the matter. Big money doesn’t care about the everyday person, and their corruption has now gripped governments.
We beat cancer, though sequelae has left me severely handicapped, home bound, and alone. You can bet that I rarely put a cellphone near my body, and then only briefly.
Wow, just saying I'm sorry to hear this. That sounds sad to hear you say handicapped, home bound and alone. Besides Sabine's channel, I listen to Jeffrey Mishlove's shows quite a bit, you might enjoy it. Totally different vibe. Thank you for the cautionary cell phone story.
To be honest, I thought 4G was fast enough.
4G is sufficiently fast for most of my work.
If it ever present, I personally struggle to catch good reception even in urban environment. They better to improve existing network rather than implementing new one 😠
I remember taking a part in a meeting around 1991 where an engineer bragged the university has now a 19200 baud rate connection to the Internet and it will be enough for years to come. As I heard him, I was sure he was talking nonsense. It turned out, I was right.
The problem with 4G is that the data rate you see varies wildly with how much it is being used locally. So the rates you see advertised are maximums. I rely on 4G and much of the time it is OK for normal web usage - then it will grind to a halt if there's a lot of local usage, a national event that people are watching on their mobile devices, or the moon is in the wrong phase (i.e. for unknown reasons).
4G is not fast enough, try working a job where you download tens of GBs everyday and live in a place without fiber
I had no idea the effect 5G might have on weather forecasting... Seems like a massive oversight to something extremely critical
The imagine what it can do to the body.
Informative and well made video! Just one error I noticed at 15:55: you referred to the FCC's 35dBW-higher limit compared to the WMO's as "more than 30 orders of magnitude above", but every 10 decibels are a power of ten, not every 1 decibel (≈ *1.2589). Thus it should have been "more than _3 orders of magnitude_ above".
I was about to comment exactly the same thing. I'm hoping she just mis-spoke. Any scientifically literate person should immediately see that a power increase of 30 orders of magnitude couldn't possibly be correct. That's roughly equivalent to the World Metereological Organization saying "We'd like you to limit this to the power of a single LED, please" and the USA saying "Eh, we'll limit it to 250 Suns. That'll be OK."
(By the way, I'm not suggesting that Sabine isn't scientifically literate. Just that it's a really bad mistake for a scientifically literate person to make.)
@@beeble2003 Yeah, because this is pretty basic I wonder if it has something to do with a language mistake between German and English. Of course one might define an order of magnitude using a non-base-10 power, but this is definitely not the case with the decibel scale, even if each base-10 magnitude is "divided" to its 10th root.
I was about to comment the same. Great video otherwise.
This mistake comforts me as it means Sabine doesn’t know everything, which I was starting to become convinced she did.
I noticed that too.
Whenever science comes into conflict with money, money wins. It's how it always works.
How it always works in capitalism
Political power SCIENCE fueled by data obtained from science methodology?
@@TheMightyShell Lysenkoism
Thank the euros and their murderous greeeeed.😠
That is more US politics.
You know, a really, really simple solution here is just "switch" out that one 5G channel directly above the 24 GHz water vapor channel: very little degradation of databandwidth in the network and less interference...
Thank you Sabine for another fascinating production! 👍
Hopefully it's that simple and not something like California having a water shortage crisis while positioned on the coast of the largest ocean in the world 🌊
An even simpler solution is to understand that "5G" isn't a frequency.
@@StringerNews1 we understand that, thanks. 5G channels, however, are a frequency range.
A narrow band switchout could be implemented with a simple software patch...a compromise that most including the 5G advocates and the companies that already have billions invested could live with.
@@Fs3i if you're channeling Queen Victoria with the "royal we", then no, it doesn't mean that. But thanks for saying nothing germane to the topic.
4g and similar stuff is just fine, which is a problem for a whole industry that is predicated on producing and selling new technology with faster and faster transfer rates. At some point (probably already) they will have to arbitrarily change the technology with little to no consumer benefit
Definitely already. It’s been happening with smartphones for the past 5 years atleast. Nobody with a brain is buying a new phone every 2/3 years like they used to because the innovation and big upgrades in speed and processing power are minimal at best.
A couple of points, 5G is used on several bands, not just mmWave. In fact it's often used on the exact same bands as 4G, 3G, 2G and 1G. It's just expanded to include mmWaves. That said, mmWave is a huge spread, with only part of it close to the frequencies used by vapour detection. In fact, there a 4 mmWave bands allocated for 5G and only one of them is near it. The other 3 are further up the spectrum. So, it's just a small piece of the mmWave spectrum that's the problem, not 5G in general.
Incidentally, there is another area where 5G is getting unwarranted blame. That's with the with the n77/n78 band, which starts at 3.3 GHz. This is close to the frequency used by radio altimeters, as used on aircraft. There was a lot of noise from the aviation community about this. However, it turns out no one bothered to do any testing. They just assumed. Turns out it's a problem with certain older altimeter models that had inadequate filters. Adding a filter fixes that problem. Also, aviation regulators have often ordered equipment upgrades, as technology advanced.
Certainly that vapour detection must be considered, with spectrum allocated and equipment designed appropriately to avoid the problem. One method that's often used is called a notch filter, where a filter is used to block specific frequencies. This combined with the usual band pass filters would likely remove the problem.
Is not just some old RAs, is most RAs in service. We are hard at work certifying the new transceivers which reject the near 5G frequencies at 3.7 to 3.85 GHz.
If you listened carefully, your comment does not contradict the video. Did you? And did you suggest to the people at CTIA not to use that special band? Could be worth it.
@@Rokin365 I'm not sure what your question is. First off, as I mentioned, is that many assume 5G means only mmWaves, which is not the case. However, any other band has nothing to do with the issue of measuring moisture. This video is somewhat vague in a lot of ways, so it's hard to pin down what she's saying. Regardless, this is a technical issue with potential interference that has to be considered. For example, how much power is actually transmitted? Does it produce frequencies that actually interfere? Is it possible to reduce the interference? Regardless, if there is significant interference from mmWave 5G, then it might be best to not use frequencies so close to what is used for moisture detection. This isn't the first time such has happened. For example UHF TV channel 52 (IIRC) was not used in North America, so as not to interfere with radio astronomy. Balancing radio spectrum users is an ongoing challenge that has both technical and regulatory solutions. I mentioned the aircraft altimeters, where the fix is to just put a filter ahead of the affected devices. As for CTIA, I'd always be wary of what an industry spokesman says, as they are not unbiased. The moisture issue will take proper study before those bands come into common use. Also, given the short range of those frequencies, they might be used mainly indoors, in stadiums, air ports, etc., in which case the problem might not exist.
Indeed the highest band around 90 GHz is intended for large crowds with a direct line of sight. It is ideal for temporarily locations like concerts, large crowds can be served at once with relatively little hardware, without overloading the fixed antenna network. And the lowest band is ideal for iot applications, 5G is a very broad specification both for industrial applications and consumer telecommunications. From technical point of view it is a very well thought specification and a major milestone, but for most people it's just 'faster'.
I'm definitely in favour of hard limits on leakage around scientifically important frequencies. These frequencies are discrete and well defined. The impact on commercial utilization is tolerable, and the loss of the scientific utilization is not. I'd say this one is pretty clear cut, even if it means a trip back to the drawing board. I like the apparent European approach - just hold off on auctioning those bands for now.
Considering that those scientific measurements are essentially a public utility that is used to enhance safety of the public so commercial use should come secondary in consideration anyways.
How about antimatter in the EM frequencies? I think the current frequency schemes have some limitations. Some noises are important.
@@yangpachankis "Antimatter in the EM frequencies"? Does that translate into anything real or at least understandable?
I'm definitely NOT in favour of hard limits on leakage around scientifically important frequencies
@@KaiHenningsen if you do astronomical observations, you will see the data noises. And those noises in the microwave background contain some portions of antimatter. Saw another comment about the designs for amplitude for transmission data integrity. Those are the antimatter contribution in the EM spectrum they tried to overcome. Stephen Hawking talked about it in one of his lectures introducing Roger Penrose. I saw it recently… only that the Big Bang theory made his insights hidden from the scientific consensus.
Once we reach 10G, every person on the planet will need to have a radio tower implanted in their spine.
that's...literally the premise of the novel i'm writing. lol.
4G was enough to produce global upheaval by rendering information gatekeepers irrelevant. Anybody could have his or her dumb conspiracy theory or misinformation go viral and the fools and gullible morons would not realize it was nonsense, demonstrating decisively the value of education. 10 G will be utilized from caves and a Mad Max new stone age.
Cyberpunk
That sounds like a good idea for a modern remake of "The President's Analyst"!
@@phangkuanhoong7967 when does it come out, I'm excited to read it
Love your videos. The way you explain things is quite clear and understandable. Just a small trivial thing is we don’t have squirrels 🐿 in New Zealand we have a few kiwi birds they’ll just have to watch that instead.
As Neman Syed pointed out above, "By the time you see them, it's already too late..." Dun dun DUN!
... And no, we don't want any squirrels either in case anyone was wondering. We already have too many exotic species making a mess of our environment.
@Mysterious_old_geek what does the acronym stand for?
@@2bfrank657 Was it New Zealand where the baboon riots were criminally organized?
Are you aware of which colonial additives resulted in plant and animal extinctions? Rumor is that some endangered lifeforms were unique to New Zealand. Natural causes are not the accusable bastards.
Merely foreigners' only were probably the only essential conspirators causing your environmental muck-ups.
Not saying all city-slickers share your naivete. But it does look like Naturalist farmers of scientific compatibility are NOT so typically shallow. What I am saying is the first New Zealand inhabitants did not cause such calamities prior to ARROGANT international invaders.
High quality and concise, as usual.
5G is a transmission format, not a frequency band. It can be used on any band. There is nationwide 5G coverage on the 600MHz band
It is designed to work with the higher frequencies.
The performance of 5g at the lower frequencies are not as good.
@@porcorosso4330 It depends on which performance characteristics you value at the moment.
My point is that all the issues discussed in this video are a function of the 2.5GHz band, not the 5G format.
All the formats were designed to work in all the available bands.
Higher bands are able to transfer higher data rates, and the 5G format is able to take full advantage of that. Conversely, higher bands radio propagation performance is much worse by nearly every measure.
@@porcorosso4330 Its definitions and regulations include higher frequencies. That doesn't mean anybody will burst mm waves into your toilette.
@@porcorosso4330 5G has about a 25% performance improvement over 4G in the same spectrum.
Very clear and well-paced presentation with good definitions of acronymns and engineering concepts, with actual numbers, as well as summary of the politics around the topics. Thanks.
ruclips.net/video/tsEayqT7cyU/видео.html
Sabine fails to address the point that 5G has NO negative consequence on weather forecasting,
because 5G is used ONLY in cities of high population density because it has NO USE in sparsely populated places.
5G is not used over open ocean, where meterologists takes measurements to predict hurricanes.
Hurricanes form over open ocean, not over land.
McToon makes these points in the video linked in this comment.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the 5G range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors 5G content. All the accepted research on the safety of 5G advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry. Panic.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
Thank you for explaining this complex situation.
I love your videos. Very informative, and I like the deadpan manner in which you drop a joke or a dunk.
Accurate weather prediction is increasingly important for predicting both energy consumption and production. Getting this wrong causes imbalance on the grid, which costs money and in extreme cases causes blackouts.
It would seem only fair to me if telecom companies were made to pay for this externality.
Fat chance, my friend!
It is not that easy to blame telecom companies for the externality -- when scientists put their satellites out there, the should have added filters to block anything outside of the narrow range they want -- just as phone manufacturers should have followed stricter limits of what they are allowed to transmit out of the passband.
@@SpectatorAlius Uh, the FCC governs all radio transmitters including both systems. All radio systems are thoroughly analyzed and are reviewed by several independent groups of RF engineers SMEs, most of which are PhDs.
The handsets transmit about 12dB less power than than the downlink. And handsets have horrible antennas. There has to be at least 20dB less radiated power, and much, much less energy.
All BTS (cell site) equipment is the highest quality available. All system performance is continuously monitored, measured and analyzed. All carriers use the latest techniques to ensure all radio transmissions are well within specifications.
Don't worry so much. We'll get it sorted.
So wind generations systems are HUGE. They are in areas void of other development because that's where the wind blows. Wind blows because giant air masses at high pressure seek pressure equalization by moving to low pressure air masses. Of course there are many other factors but the measurements needed are not super high tech. These systems are giant and changes occur slowly. Predictions in these areas are extremely precise, better than 95%, 1 full day ahead and about 80% accurate 2 full days ahead. These air masses are giant and changes occur slowly. Predictions in these area are outstanding. Rain measurements are not useful for this. And, network carriers would not deploy 2.5GHz systems in these areas due to wave propagation fade, and no people. 5G is a format not a frequency band. 5G works great on 600, 700, 800 MHz, or anywhere else you'd like.
PV is another story. Energy production varies substantially as visible moisture shades the cells. However we only need dew point and temp aloft to predict. Precision is not as good but decent. It's typically correct but can miss unexpectedly. Not even counting the previous 2.5 GHz auction, the FCC collected $416M. For that price, in fairness, shouldn't they ensure proper design? Shouldn't they be held accountable? Well, they are not.
Telecom companies paid, and paid, and paid. When that was done, they paid again.
A problem with weather-based power generation.
In the UK we can't get a decent weather forecast for more than 12 hours ahead. Not because of bad science, but the constant shifting of our air currents interacting.
But crazy technophobe UK residents can't burn down air currents...
Great podcasts Sabine, thanks.
Well balanced view on the subject Dr.Sabine. Much appreciated.
At 3:08... 6:38... Love the meta millimeter wave wave... 🤣 Once again, thanks for simplifying a complex subject. SH, you are amazing!
One quibble: when Sabine talks about the future capabilities of 6G she mentions the enablement of various use cases with “instantaneous access.” This is not quite true. 6G provides greater bandwidth (as 5G did, and 4G before that), but *latency* is not as dramatically imoroved. Many of those science fiction applications also demand very low latency in addition to large bandwidth. Getting lower latencies is possible, but it can be a more costly engineering problem to address.
4G and 5G offered a huge improvement on latency. To make latency much shorter than sub 10ms we have to start bringing services nearer to consumers, perhaps away from those huge server facilities, which will still be used for higher latency applications and data storage. But a round trip from, let's say Helsinki to Berlin is a minimum of 11ms and the fiber optics don't run straight. The latency wirelessly from phone to that fiber is brought close to a minimum already, as well as how many bits can be squeezed in bandwidth unit.
we wil lal lbe too broke to afford internet soon anyway haha
but she's only repeating what Tom Wheeler promised as chairman of the FCC and concerning 5g - he said a lot of things that didn't add up but sold it to whoever bought it, the majority of the population didn't vote this thing in but just got seduced into 'entertainment' and lifestyle
Sure, but any online video game player will tell you that
@@UnderscoreZeroLP true, but I spent two days last week dealing with people for whom 15 microseconds latency is completely unacceptable. And who arewilling to pay tens of millions of dollars to maintain such performance. Gaming is just the icing on a massive cake
Beautifully presented.... Thank you
Thank you an excellent vidio especially the part around 16 mins where you point out the tradeoffs between technology for living vs the ability to get better data to enable technology for living :-D 😀
Yea, the grumpy thing and experimenting on us all instead of doing the basic testing beforhand is extremely troubling. Great essay Sabine THANKS !!
Yep, it was testified in congress that Zero tests have been done to look.at health effects!! Invest in Cancer Centers.
They are Sneaking these 5G towers all around Sarasota/Bradenton every night hoping people don't notice. Like a big prison being built around us
Reminds you of something else doesn't it
@@Cobbido We’re allowed to talk about it on YT now 😂
@@Cobbido kind of...
I'm sure if we just follow "the science", everything will be fine.
Oh man, these claims about "6G/7G/etc. will be so fast that you'll never have wait times" are frustrating me so much. The faster hardware becomes, the more bloated people make their software, so in the end you still have annoying wait times. Just look at the state of the Internet today. So many ad banners, fonts being loaded from ten different sources, auto-playing videos, and other crap. If a website only contained the text and graphics we actually want to see, things would already load instantly with 4G levels of speed.
It's the same with software performance. CPUs, RAM, and SSDs have gotten ridiculously fast compared to what we had in the past, and yet you still have programs hanging and taking long times to load, because they're packed with so much nonsense that nobody needs.
On the other hand, we can play games in 4K 120Hz now, which was absolutely not possible 5 years ago.
Also, we have services such as Netflix, which would be close to impossible 15 years ago.
So the question is really, what do we expect to need in 5 years? Answer is, ultra low latency, high capacity and ultra reliable communications. 5G attempts to tackle all 3... the mmWave part is really only a slice of the network which takes care of the capacity part.
@@unsettledroell I was watching footage of concerts and endless number of videos on ''google videos'' more than 15 years ago, and grew up watching documentaries on youtube in 2007 and latter, and even some movies, Anything you can imagine was uploaded and streamed, even though it was in parts. So i'm not that impressed with Netflix.
@@1GTX1 and you could count the pixels too is my guess?
@@unsettledroell 720p was introduced already at the end of 2008 and 1080p in 2009
@@1GTX1 and you had a 4K capable GPU back then?
Do love your opinion's, so relevant and clear , also a great smile
Yet another excellent video, love your channel Sabine 👊🏽❤️
That really sucks... weather forecasts are super important for so much, and they are so accurate it's incredible, when you understand how difficult a problem it really is.
I use detailed weather forecasts for windsurfing and other things I do. I sure hope the issue is going to be resolved because returning to significantly worse forecasts is going to be a real pain.
Talk about butterfly effect . . . Computers create weather forecasts and if you put in that much bad data what will happen to the forecast models?
But with 6G enabled Metaverse, you would anyway be surfing in virtual reality in weather of your choice ;)
@@JatinSanghvi1 Well . . .we cant miss out on that experience can we.
It will also cut food supply when there is already a shortage. Farmers depend on the weather more than anyone. However, 6G, which is coming, is the real problem. It requires much closer cell towers and is inimical to animals, like us.
@@kensho123456 Or use the hurricane lamp test LOL
10:03 Sabine part of the reason why like watching your videos -aside from the levels of sanity- is because of the quality of burns you distribute
Thank you for an informative clip.
Dear Sabine, clouds are not made of water vapor, but of water (small water droplets), which is why we can see them with our own eyes.
Thank you for this video! Roughly a year, I realized that weather forecasts are getting noticeably worse, especially in regards to rain forecasts.
Just like Fat David E. He's made of of tiny Fat cells not Fat
Mary and Fat Dave
Correct, but (in this video) she does not claim that clouds are made of water vapor. She does mention the amount of water vapor in clouds as compared to in the lower atmosphere, but of course a cloud can also have water vapor dissolved in the air between droplets.
@@lillihawell2968 I have no idea how this work, but I would guess satellites measure both water and water vapor. Or do they just see water vapor?
@@jonasdaverio9369 Personally I also have little idea how it works; as far as I know, satellites don't directly measure either of those; instead, they measure the intensity of certain EM wavelengths, and different intensities correspond to different temperatures, and different temperatures correspond to different altitudes since the atmosphere varies in temperature as you go up or down. Then there's one range of wavelengths for measuring clouds and such, and another range for measuring water vapor specifically; the amount of water vapor etc. can then be inferred based on the measured intensities (e.g. if the intensity reading indicates a high altitude, that means there's probably a lot of water vapor, because the light is being reflected back from a high altitude, meaning there's probably a lot of water vapor piled up in the area)
I assume the two wavelengths react with a measurable difference to the presence of water droplets, so they can probably make some kind of calculation to separately determine how much water is in droplets vs. vapor, but really meteorology is way beyond me and I have no idea how they figure these things out with any level of confidence
It's also possible Sabine did mean the water in cloud droplets (rather than water vapor, as she said), but I am nitpicky so I assume she meant what she said
Isn't the difference between -55dBW and -20dBW 3.5 orders of magnitude, not 30 orders of magnitude?
it is. But hysterical anti-science woo really doesn't care, does it?
Great presentation, Sabine. Thank you to you and your team.
I’m surprised that a physicist wouldn’t mention the critical distinction of ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation for various EMF frequencies. It’s the most relevant data point.
16:35 Hits the proverbial nail on the head about how things are designed and rolled out.
Design technology with the real world in mind.
Very informative and very relevant Sabine - thanks!
Great video and good job on the eyebrows!
Subscribed. Love your videos. You are a Seeker of knowledge, well as they called it, Wisdom. Well I hate the flaws in physics too and the society doesn't admit new ideas.
When you mention 30 orders of magnitude I believe you meant 3 (10^3). That is 30dB in power.
Harmonics are a well known problem in transmitter design, and the higher the power output the higher the harmonic amplitudes. Designers use low pass filters to reduce harmonic amplitudes, but that only attenuates them as a source of interference. In addition the more data you transmit on a channel the broader the sidebands become. So I'm inclined to agree with the leakage concerns. The 5G industry should be well aware of these concerns since this stuff is taught to any EE major in their communication systems course.
Also amateur radio licencies
@@rwesenberg true. Hams are well aware of these problems and work to eliminate them from their homemade equipment.
Resonant frequency is important across all science and engineering. For example, the same math (or close enough) is used to determine if your car will rattle apart just driving normally, or in simulating molecular interactions. A flywheel and inductor are governed by exactly the same second order differential equations and are both used to smooth out vibrations identically in mechanical and electrical systems.
There's the not insignificant fact that harmonics only occur _above_ the fundamental frequency. When the alleged interference frequency is _above_ the one supposedly in jeopardy, harmonics just don't magically reach _down_ in frequency to interfere. True, some frequency at half, or a third of the frequency may generate harmonics that interfere, but then blaming "5G" for that is not at all honest.
@@StringerNews1 I'm guessing that it is harmonics or sideband interference. I did a Google search trying to find more details on the frequencies and proposed mechanism, but the links I found didn't have any details.
Love your work!
Thanks for this informative video, and for your dry sense of humor.😄👍💖
Two thoughts I have about the safety aspects of 5G:
1. ANY electromagnetic radiation, even in the kHz range will produce dangerous non-ionising radiation (i.e. it will heat you up) if the transmission power is high enough.
2. If low power (milliwatt) microwave transmitters such as 5G phone antennas were harmful because of the frequency of EM radiation, then it would be a really bad idea to be near a light bulb that’s switched on. Those things are emitting EM radiation across the terahertz range!
Edit: He fixed it. It originally stated kHz range was ionizing.
@@JimBob1937 thanks, I’ve corrected my post. My mistake about the ionising radiation. EM waves below x-ray frequency are non-ionising. With regards to power vs energy, I’m referring to transmission power in watts. E.g. a 5G phone that transmits in milliwatts isn’t the same as a microwave oven’s magnetron that transmits at around 600W. I’m not making reference to any measure of energy (in joules).
@@jamesstevens2362 , no problem. Yeah, I was referring to energy since ionization requires a specific amount of energy (which technically varies based on the atom in question). Then energy is related to frequency by plank's constant, higher frequency is higher energy. Hence, your statement of ionization, frequency, and power made me wonder if you were conflating them at the time.
It *is* a bad idea to sit near a light bulb -- if you stare at it without blinking and let the mosquitos bite!
I've thought that too, ask someone "If I radiated 500THz at 1000's of watts a few meters in front of you, and you could feel it warming up your face, would that concern you?" If they say yes, they'd better stay away from camp fires.
Wave Channels have limits
2:21 Limits exist
3:56 Millimeter Waves
4:30 1/107 studies was well designed in figuring out 5G affect or no affect on human skin
5:02 Research weaknesses
- small sample size
- Poor control of environmental parameters
6:17 Data and Word
6:53 Water Vapor in the atmosphere 💧 🛰
7:40 23.80GHZ - the frequency satellites use to look for water
7:47 The Issue: The 5G Band causes Leakage and Noise 🕳💥
8:19 ☀️🌧⛈🌦🌈💧💨Weather Forecasts have improved since 1980, 80% -> 98% accuracy. Due to better computers and satellites 📡 🛰
9:20 Water Vapor sensitivity
Noise in highly populated cities interfere
10:42 🌀Hurricane tracking could weaken
11:17 THATS ABSURD, 5G doesn’t do that.
13:01 Research found….
14:23 Augmented Reality 6G, instant availability 14:45 Incredibly Fast
15:45 -20dBW
16:05 Scientists get to a new discovery 1st, people catch up, causes interference
16:35 Work harder in Design [Research and Development] to fix problems, so Rollout of new tech can go smoothly.
Thank you!
This should be pinned to the top.
The lord has presented; and we have accepted
Nicely done - thanks!
11:46 It's Trump's fault... :p
Some influential engineering organisations have already called a halt on the ever upward migration of mobile network frequency band and essentially say that 5G is a failed concept and the ambition for 6G should be to find new ways to move the data without those higher frequencies.
Has research begun on the Gosh-G radio band? It's said to be amazing! Thanks Sabine🙃
"30 orders of magnitude." Not quite, Sabine. A decibel is 1/10th of a Bel, and Bels count orders of magnitude. So, 30 dB is about a factor of a thousand. Still really bad, but not 30 orders of magnitude bad.
You seem to think "order of magnitude" is necessarily base ten.
@@TheAntibozo that's the definition of an order of magnitude--a factor of 10. Not "base ten".
3.5 orders of magnitude on a log ten scale. I had to look it up because sometimes people use order of magnitude to refer to log 2 scales which might be closer to the truth.
@@TheAntibozo It would be 12 orders of magnitude if it was factors of 2. And that's only really used for computer science stuff, not physics.
Language is an art and is communication she was expressing that something is excessive and odysseus9672 communicates this in agreeing Still really bad. We often look at language as scientific and exact like our brains when we follow the scientific method but we must consider the intent and point of the communicator even if its not correct her point was expressed and communicated just like my point.
This channel is simply a gem. Thank you for your time and energy. The transference is appreciated greatly!
It is not. Hossenfelder has no clue what she is talking about.
Sabine made a few blunders in this video. I addressed them on my channel, but she has not responded yet. Very sad.
@@ConspiracyToonz I commented on your video response. Have to say, I was put off by your channel name at first, but I do agree that you brought up some excellent points. I also subbed to your channel.
Thanks for responding!
@@chae5833 thanks!
Well stated. Thank you.
Reading the title I was ready to call BS, but you actually know what you are talking about! Well presented and explained facts, very interesting 👍
Go to "conspiracy toonz".
He shows multiple errors in her video.
@@AfroGaz71 thanks... I definitely will not go there.
Sabine, you do really great work here, you make videos on topics that most science communicator RUclipsrs don't, really appreciate your work, it goes a long way into educating the masses on different topics. Keep up the good work, thanks!
do you really think the masses watch these videos? That's the problem; that's what we should talk about today .....
She's completely wrong checkout conspiracy toonz channel he destroys her nonsense 🙄
@@kensho123456 that's cause you like misinformation or conspiracy
ruclips.net/video/tsEayqT7cyU/видео.html
Sabine fails to address the point that 5G has NO negative consequence on weather forecasting,
because 5G is used ONLY in cities of high population density because it has NO USE in sparsely populated places.
5G is not used over open ocean, where meterologists takes measurements to predict hurricanes.
Hurricanes form over open ocean, not over land.
McToon makes these points in the video linked in this comment.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
Always great content to learn something new. Thanks! 👍
Another important application of weather forecast is predicting energy production from renewable sources (wind, sun) which together with demand forecast helps keeping our electrical networks regulated, i.e. avoiding needing a candle
Great stuff!
We just went through this issue with 5G and radio altimeters on aircraft. The aircraft people have tried to shift the problem to the 5G cell companies. Careful analysis has shown the issue is really the bad filter designs in the radio altimeters, they let in too much energy from nearby frequencies. After much back and forth the FAA has now mandated that the radio altimeters have to be upgraded. I looks like this is a similar situation. I realize the changing a filter on a satelite already in orbit is not an option, but going forward the satellite designers need to use better filtering. This video seems like a stretch, trying to make a big issue out of something that is probably pretty easily solved.
Even better, there's no evidence that this particular "problem" really exists. You're right-on about the radio altimeter problem. The fault has always lied with the avionics companies that sold them for more than half a century without ever disclosing that they had a dangerous flaw, or making any attempt to remedy it or warn the flying public. While the avionics industry's plan to sit on their hands and hope that nothing happens was irresponsible and ultimately didn't work, it's important to see that what the bug-eyed conspiracy theorists are doing is something entirely different. They're trying to will a "problem" into existence by shouting "wolf" repeatedly, and hoping that a wolf then appears. Equally bad planning, but coming from an opposite direction of illogic.
The way pseudoscience works is to pick a conclusion first, then go cherry-picking for evidence that supports the conclusion, ignoring evidence that contradicts it. But when there is no evidence? This woman's confused account of the issue relies on Gish gallops and demagoguery, misrepresenting what's real to the point of being meaningless gobbledygook. She has an agenda, and refuses to let facts get in its way. Nobody in their right mind should blindly accept this bafflegab, because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
@@StringerNews1 She is anything but a pseudoscientist. I suggest you watch her videos on physics and read her book. I dont know what you mean by "her agenda". I can't pretend to know a lot about the issues involves but you have not presented any fact-based objections to her statements, just accused her of demagoguery. What evidence has she ignored, please? What scrutiny does it not stand up to?
@@granthurlburt4062 when someone makes a claim, the only person responsible for bringing supporting information is the one making the claim. If the woman that stars in this video had presented _any_ supporting evidence, I would be concentrating on that. But the fact is that there is none to discuss, so I am left with discussing that glaring absence. No, you don't get to force the burden of proof onto innocent bystanders.
I actually have made _many_ fact-based objections to this demagoguery. If you want to ignore it all, and then pretend that I've presented none, that's your politics, not mine. And if you prefer to attack people personally and run from the issue, there's nothing to discuss, is there?
How do you filter out the noise if the 5G transmissions are bleeding into the frequencies you are trying to detect? I can't think of a way.
@@StringerNews1 The issue with altimeters wasn't an issue when they were designed. It is now, due to using radio spectrum for so much more.
Acknowledge the concerns of the technical experts during design rather than grudgingly acknowledge them during implementation? Crazy talk!
There's a similar situation in software, where experts in what's practical to implement are often not consulted until after many key design decisions have been made. Sometimes I wonder if such workflows are deliberate, driven by experience/fear that involving the experts early means the beautiful product vision gets crushed and the project goes nowhere.
The attitude seems to be that projects proceed best when the experts are put on the back foot, forced to come up with a quick compromise in a high pressure situation, rather than being allowed the time to come up with an optimal solution at the start.
Even more scary, Product Management *likes* doing things this way! They think it will allow them to capture "mind-share" in the market and stay ahead of their more responsible, thoughtful competition.
Thank you for your insights and opinions. I regret I'm not versed in your realm to appreciate all that concern you.
In the UK the 5G frequencies are on the same frequencies previously used by television stations for many years. TV broadcasts are at a higher power level than 5G transmitters because there were fewer of them and they were further apart. You could fry an egg on a TV transmitter. You can't even warm your hands on a 5G transmitter.
There has not been any publicly announced massive increase of any illnesses that corresponds with TV frequencies in the UK over the years so I have no concerns. My 5G enabled phone will arrive tomorrow as my my area is enabled and my 4 year old Pixel 2 is on its last legs.
What frequencies are you talking about here? Analogue tv broadcasts were at much lower frequencies (3.5GHz) IIRC it was 3G that used those frequencies.
@@steveb9542 5G has large amount of frequencies, some are low (600 MHz), some are high. Here is some of them;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands
"Precious"😵
@@steveb9542 Flatly untrue
@@engineerinnewyork care to elaborate?
"... and it's not because millimeter waves are also used as goodbyes for in-laws."
I didn't get by the way
Keep up the great work!
Love your channel ! Thank you 🙏
thank you for your persistence
Unlicensed 24 GHz is even closer to the weather satellites and they have been used for over a decade. They are used for rooftop point-to-point dish links. 25 GHz 5G is much further from the weather satellite. They are also aimed horizontally in a narrow beam so the spurious output and sideband leakage to the 23 GHz weather radar is a non-issue. If it was going to be an issue the unlicensed 24 GHz would pose a bigger problem.
Those horizontally pointing dishes are pointing at the horizon. There’s sky there too you know. No matter where you are in space, someone’s horizon is pointing at you.
@@stargazer7644 The sats are scanning downwards, not at the horizon. The point is that we are already using unlicensed 24 GHz with even less frequency separation than the new 5G bands
@@GeorgeOu The sats are in the beam of every station on the edge of the globe all the way around the planet. And the sats at geosync have the entire face of the planet in the beam.
There are no unlicensed 24 GHz users in the ISM band that are anywhere near the impact of a global 5G deployment. Unlicensed ISM band users (in the US at least) are under pretty severe EIRP limits.
@@stargazer7644go look up the 24 GHz unlicensed frequency. It is sandwiched between the licensed 5G 24 GHz band and weather satellite band. It's super easy to look up if you spent 10 seconds googling. The existing unlicensed bands are even closer to the weather satellite frequencies.
@@GeorgeOu Actually, George, I'm a user of the 24 GHz ISM band. Are you? I'm quite familiar with it. Perhaps you should stop assuming your 10 seconds of Googling trumps everyone else's knowledge on the subject.
And 5G is using a lot more energy than 4G, because you need much more small receivers to cover the area. Furthermore there are nearly no use cases which really need 5G except military use cases. (What is the real purpose for introducing the new technology)
Finding and prosecuting dissidence through information gathering and monetary transactions. When cash has been banned. "For our safety".
5g is for 'them' not us.
Short sighted, the small towers use less power than the big ones. 4G towers can easily eat up 2kW or more just for the RF generation and transmission, 5G panels are closer to ~100W for small stations.
@@unsettledroell Yeah but you need more small ones than large ones
I love it when knowledgeable people get passively sarcastic. kudos.
Brilliant channel!
I have a question: Why do we need 5G at all? I personally can't see the point of "instant data" when we're experiencing pretty near "instant" data at the moment.
Downloading 5GB of data in 15 minutes is quite different from downloading the same amount of data in less than a minute. Now that speed increase may not be useful to you personally but that does not mean that it isn't important or useful for others
well I enjoy fast internet, try downloading a 300GB video game, watching something in 4K, or better, stream in 4K on twitch - some places dont have fiber optic
It's similar to aeroplanes speed increases. You may be OK with arriving an our late but a businessperson can't afford such delays. Check out why stock broker companies are so close to internet service providers.
@@ZotyLisu Your desperate first world needs have totally convinced me. Smh.
5G is just a marketing term. There is a new specification about every 2 years. A collection of features in the 2015 specification were arbitrarily called 5G. They could have chosen to give it no name and continued to call it 4G indefinitely. It's just the evolution of the specification. The specifications constantly improve, add more features, increase speed, etc.
It is necessary because there are more cell phones and other cell devices every day. And the request for data from the network increases every day.
Keep in mind only a small fraction of 5G will ever be millimeter wavelength. Why? Because it’s way too expensive to deploy everywhere with very limited range. The antennas are on poles not towers. And will on roll out in densely populated areas like downtown/malls. The rest of 5G runs over the same bands as 4G so the interference concern is overblown imho.
The world is running out of sources of electricity generation. 5g is a waste of time. We should prepare to go back to an age of horses and donkeys as transportation
This is similar to the company Lightsquared that wanted to infringe on GPS frequencies. They had a licence for space-down-to-earth at a given frequency and power, but wanted to use that "space licence" for cellular communications on the ground - thereby impacting GPS. The FAA and others prevailed but it was an expensive and long slog. Then recently, 5G near airports was an issue due to radar altimeters... the comms people have no respect for bandwidth allocation - they want it all.
Most of T-Mobile's 5G is at 600 MHz. 5G isn't a specific wavelength, it's a protocol.
The protocol defines the ranges of frequencies that can be used-that's part of the hardware design. Otherwise you could just use an old Nokia on a 5G network.
FTR, T-Mobile uses 600 MHz as it's primary 5-G band. It's supplemented by 39 GHz in Las Vegas and 28 GHz in the other five markets.
Thanks Dr. SH for another wonderful video on this topic.
I would like to add my own thoughts as typical of any couch dwelling expert who watches a bunch of RUclips videos:
These generations of technologies absolutely need to be developed. This will be essential in the future. While it has many earthly advantages, it will be much more essential for interplanetary communications. However,
1) There's a capitalistic play here which is causing a bit of an issue. Scientific research and development now a days seem more tied to corporate bottomline than ever before. Corporations (such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Vodafone, Telenor etc.) needed 5G faster than the scientific community and research facilities could have it refined and properly evaluated. These corporations also sit in the board of these research organizations and support the research with actual funding. Therefore they have the full control of what gets put out and when. Just a basic example various 3G technologies are actually still getting refined under the guise of 5G. All through 4G we were mostly getting a set of 3G technologies refined every so often. Now that many of these companies have deployed "5G" the reality is that, 4G is finally being deployed in its full glory while 1 OR 2, 5G specific technology has also been deployed in a few specific tower of the highest density and most convenient (for deployment) area. This makes these corporations not liars while showing the public that they are constantly innovating and are on top of their game. I don't see this pattern changing I.e. we'll see 5G technologies to start roll out en masse under the guise of 6G and be fully refined by the time 7G is around.
2) Our phones saying 5/4/3G does not say anything about what technology it's actually using. The wireless carriers along with the phone manufacturers decide what the phones report to us.
3) The most important gain from generation upon generation of wireless communication technology actually has been the improvement in latency not the bandwidth. Of course bandwidth has improved significantly, but latency is most important factor to determine the quality of a communication channel. This is not easy to grasp because most of us are not well versed in communication protocols and their wireless kins. High latency has severe impact on how well these protocol functions. For example it's possible for the latency to get so high that the actual communication comes to a crawl while bandwidth remains up there, this is because bad data packets are jamming the channel. Analogy: let's say I only speak Japanese and another person I'm going to communicate with speaks only Italian. I can directly speak Japanese to this person and there will be 0 communication. I could remove noise and be in a quite room with this person and speak as loudly as necessary but there's 0 communication. I won't understand the Italian and this person won't understand Japanese. This is high bandwidth but extremely high latency. I could have a Japanese to English translator and other person could have English to Italian translator. In the same low noise environment, now we have managed to reduce the latency down to high but tolerable level. we could have communication but despite potential for very fast communication our translator bottleneck causing latency is not 0. Of course anyone can figure out how to improve the latency in this scenario. The thing to realize is that it's impossible to fully eliminate this latency for our actual wireless communication scenario, because:
a) we are not able to eliminate noise, and wireless medium will always have unpredictable amount of noise, increasing frequency of the radio waves to the point that it becomes as close to flat line as possible is the way to eliminate noise at which point we've transferred over to straight line Fibre optics channel. However, I think the future physicists will be able to solve this problem of medium.
b) we have to always have translation layer because at the level of usable communication we are using disparate systems and protocols (which make up the internet)
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
@ 2:44 I do this for a living (EME technical specialist) and yes we have to add power and additional channels, many going from 200w per sector to 1500w per sector as you should know the higher the Frequency, the Higher the attenuation (Signal Loss)....hell a good stand of trees can weaken the signal dramatically....that's why we use Macro cells (on power poles and streetlights) The old system in the 80's was much more aggressive AMPS and 2G CDMA in reference to Power/Freq......
We still stay many db (9db to 15db) below WHO standards for maximum non occupational exposure. By the way these frequencies are nothing new, and in fact many Wi-Fi used and are still using them. The only impact currently known is surface heating of tissue. You should be more concerned with High Voltage Powerlines and FM....we certainly do.
That being said, continue being a Skeptic,
(what people now call a "Conspiracy Theorist") wish people did in the 60's regarding Asbestos and Agent Orange...ect...
Okay, subscribing to this channel now. It’s too much fun.
Biggest problem I have with 5G is the usefulness. Than again, I’m not bothered about not having the ability to watch or stream stuff all the time. If anything, I rather enjoy being off grid.
5G is mostly for system wide operations not the average user. Think autonomous vehicles, autonomous manufacturing, remote operations of machines from office
how're you using internet if you're "off grid"
'Off grid' means different things. Could just be no water or electricity. I'm off grid and have internet on my phone.
There's no water or electricity here I charge stuff with my truck or solar batteries.
@@ericvulgate I mostly charge my devices with my wood stove.
@@Hideyoshi1991 Sometimes buddy, sometimes.
I freaking love the channel! You lay down the information in a way that the rest of us can "pick up". Dr. Kreider and Dr. Shibata. Super smart people and if you, the student, was willing to take the time, they would go an extra mile. Or two. Instructors are from Purdue.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the 5G range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors 5G content. All the accepted research on the safety of 5G advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry. Panic.
Why do you think it's safe if RUclips just delete every comment about it?
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the VG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors VG content. All the accepted research on the safety of VG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
The millimeter wave joke is really really good. I'm sending you decameter waves for that.
FYI: 4G and 5G is really just a protocol that dictates how the towers and the phones talk to each other. 5G can use the exact same frequencies as 4G - and it actually does in most markets. The problem is with idiotic carriers who want to be able to advertise the insane speeds only capable with mmWave, despite it being completely impractical - even your own hand can completely block mmWave from reaching your phone. It's a complete waste of spectrum even before you take into account the weather predictions issues.
With all that said, 5G as a protocol is actually a huge upgrade over 4G in terms of reliability - the extra speed is just a marketable bonus. If we could just reallocate all the old 3G & 4G spectrum and use it for 5G, then things would be great. Unfortunately, that would require everyone in North America to replace all their legacy devices, so that's not happening anytime soon.
Totally agree, though in a macrocellular environment, 4G is already pretty damn good so we may be operating at the point of diminishing returns even in low and mid-band spectrum. The thing 5G does offer in the lower bands is more carrier aggregation and combination possibilities, which can be used to give a higher peak rate. The benefits of this remain to be seen, though, since they only marginally increase capacity, and those peak rates will be hard to see in a crowded environment. The focus on mmWave is really boxing 3GPP technologies into direct competition with Wi-Fi in terms of the realistic use cases, e.g. in-building, short range. But it does it at a MUCH higher cost (about 10x the cost). Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that 5G has mostly been a flop.
Wow. That was a very clear way of presenting the 5G problem. Before this, I was unaware of this issue. Subscribing now for more videos like this. Thanks.
How deep must the cave you live in be, for you to not even know 5G was a concern..?
You covered the safety issue perfectly. I agree with you. I don't think we will follow the precautionary principle because of money and it's disappointing about the low quality research. I think the WHO is political and not helpful too. I don't need that much data available to my phone anyway.
Hello Sabine, your hard-copy book ( that you authored ) arrived in my letterbox yesterday. I'm pleased with how all of that went. I've enjoyed your YT channel for quite a long time now, and it feels good to have made a purchase. Thanks for all your efforts to promote the fascinating world of Physics, Science and Technology to the general public. Kind regards.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the VG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors VG content. All the accepted research on the safety of VG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. RUclips censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.
Thank you for this info, put in such an informative and understandable way. It's getting very hard to find believable info. 👍
Danke Sabine, das war sehr interessant!
Für das Gefasel sollte man sie aus der Uni werfen.
Some things actually do change in this stagnant century.
I remember hearing on New Years day in 2000 that half the people in the world had never made or received a Phone call in their lives.
Ain't exactly the case now, is it?
No that's, still pretty much true,get outa your bubble
And every electronic device that had a older data chip would stop working at midnight Dec 31
I like the dBm limitations idea, but why is there so much opposition? Surely there is some kind of filter or choke which can be integrated into those antennas so they do not give so much leakage.
I'm all in on the need for 4G but I have no idea why we need anything more. Especially at tremendous costs. Slow mobile internet connectivity doesn't feel like one of the burning issues of our time.
Then you’d be cool with going back to dialup then, right?
42 6:08 You mean there are NOT COPIES IF ME in a PARALLEL UNIVERSE??
Dammmm I was hoping to really get to know myself someday..
And take over the life of MY COPY if there lives were better than mine ...
The problem with your plan is there's an infinite number of copies also planning to take over your life in other universes as well. To some of those copies your life is looking better than theirs, so you might be the one who's life is taken over.
Scientists: We can do this cool stuff with new technology. But it needs to be properly implemented so it is safe and doesn't impact others.
Companies: Awesome! But we don't "trust" scientists. So, we'll use the science you guys developed (hmmm). But ignore the issues until it costs 10 times more to fix it.
Later, the companys bill the government and/or consumer to fix the issues that they were already warned about so they get to make money on it twice. Or if they can't make more money, then they fob it off for as long as possible. EG: 5G is no longer a problem because we are all moving to 6G! Then 6G is no longer a problem because we are all moving to 7G!
Guns and money make the world go around. A problem almost everywhere but more so in some countries...
Sadly very true, as a retired engineer and scientist.
The telecoms are externalizing the costs of the implementation and forcing the public to pay the costs.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. That is the dream of capitalism, and the American Dream is simply a bottle for US corporations to suckle on. Keep that carrot on the stick looking mighty fine, and grind grind grind away those profits!!
Never mind the losses will be 10x: _You're_ not paying for them, so who cares!?
So when are you founding your utopia ?
I'm afraid the weather forecast issue is a canard. It's my experience in Canada as an outdoor contractor that weather forecasts haven't improved since I was a kid 60 years ago. I remember a farmer looking up into the sky and I asked him if he could forecast the weather. He said he'd been studying the sky every morning for 70 years so I could rely on him. He said after all this experience, damned if he knew what would happen. Nothing's changed.
Wieder ein tolles Video, danke.
I agree, the design stage for each new iteration is when everyone (including the scientists) should be involved in the discussion to have their concerns heard, evaluated, etc. Hearings about their complaints right before or even during an upgrade rollout is a clear indication there is little, if any regard for scientists' concerns by decision makers & planners in the wireless industry.
*_TRUST !!_*
Trust or Sue the globalists if their tech causes injury...
These are the same people that told us that smoking was good for us. That kids that ate candy were healthier than those that didn't. The only thing they've proven is that they think we are all idiots, and we'll believe whatever they tell us. It might actually be the thing that they've been the most correct about actually.
@@MikeJones-wp2mw what has been proven is that there are good scientists, and bad scientists.
It was also science who discovered tobacco use and excess sugar is bad for us. Science has it's limitations, and new studies always come out. Scientists are not idiots, they just say what the experimental data demonstrate, not eternal truths
I think you should at least mention that there’s low-band 5G (400-2000Mhz), mid-band 5G (
You know that. I know that. But the crazy lady doesn't know that. What's worse, she doesn't seem to care.
@@StringerNews1 I wouldn’t call her crazy. In fact this video was well researched and she had good valid points with some information that I didn’t know about. As a subscriber to this channel it should go without saying that I respect her.
I think it’s really important to point out that most of the 5G spectrum is similar to 4G as I said in my prior comment. There are a lot of people that are against 5G as a whole and we should be better at informing them.
@@Gubby-Man Your comment regarding the fallacy of equating 5G with any frequency band is absolutely correct, and I also agree that the public needs to be well informed. Which is not what the lady here has done.
@@Gubby-Man well researched? Show me _any_ research, and I'll be happy to show you where it's wrong or just bogus. The science-denying crazy lady certainly hasn't shown any research. All she has done is regurgitate the same debunked claims that have been floating around since 1G AMPS first became publicly available, and saying "nuh-uh" to the real science because it doesn't fit her narrative.
I give you credit, you've done some looking, even if it's marketing more than scientific knowledge. Perhaps I gave you more credit than you deserve, but it looked to me like you understood that 5G has nothing to do with frequency. The crazy lady doesn't understand that. She keeps conflating 5G with mmWave, which is the anti-5G narrative, and is not true. Ditto for the hokum about water resonance. The truth is that weather is forecast on computers, not satellites. They may seem equally mysterious and thus interchangeable if you know nothing about them, but the people that built them do know, and they rely on data not fantastic stories.
You made a good point. Sabine is wrong about frequencies. What you need to do is take the next step and begin to understand the other things she's wrong about. It doesn't matter how confidently one talks, if they have no supporting evidence to back up their story, that story is baseless, and probably not true. If you like I'll go through each and every point with you.
@@Gubby-Man Batshit crazy. She calls flat earth "theory" intelligent. Her bullshit on higher dimensions and her claims about SR are hair-raising. Respecting her translates to profound disrespect for science.