Still on 5G.

From time to time, when I talk about my work, I am asked about 5G. And in the end it becomes unnerving, for one simple reason: it's about shoveling the usual pile of shit. And being the creator of the mountain of shit theory, I know full well that it doesn't work. People who shovel shit on 5G shovel too much, and it's too interdisciplinary.

There is only one part that is monodisciplinary, and that is the part of the millimeter waves. I don't understand why people get so excited about millimeter waves, since they are hardly ever used in the actual implementation.

Using millimeter waves for 5G means, in theoretical design (which is then used by conspiracy theorists ) to have a 5G cell every hundred meters, and a supercell that makes them work in mesh. For this reason the design is theoretical: the surface of Italy is 301,340 km². Since with a cell every 100m in a square km it takes a hundred, covering Italy with 5G using the theoretical design would require 30,134,000 cells. One for every two inhabitants. Seriously? We would end up with two subscribers (assuming that every human in Italy has a cell phone) to pay the cost of a 5G BTS with their bills. Unrealistic. (in reality the maximum steric coefficient would be 6, and not 4 as with 100 cells, but the order of magnitude does not change much: three users per cell instead of two).

The truth is that the current design is NOT the theoretical one, so everyone who reads the theoretical standard and then gives us a conspiracy theory is a cialtronz.

But suppose someone really deployed thirty million 5G BTS in Italy, using the famous millimeter band: what harm would it have on health?

Now the opinions of those who talk about the studies in a laboratory will mix in the usual impressive places, and my answer is: bullshit. I'll explain.

We are talking about electromagnetic radiation damage. Electromagnetic radiations are of various types, and normally the ones that do damage are ionizing ones, but even if you use non-ionizing ones you can damage the tissues: the job of your microwave oven, or a cast iron stove, is to warm you up. (even up to burn yourself) the tissues. Even visible light does damage: try to point a 5W laser in your eye, and you will observe… that you will never observe anything again. This is to say that electromagnetic waves are ALL dangerous, just put too many.

So we are talking about electromagnetic radiation damage. To measure the damage from electromagnetic radiation you must first understand that they already exist in nature, because it is necessary to distinguish the damage of 5G from what you do yourself when you go to the beach. For example, the sun sends a wave of ionizing radiation onto the earth (UV rays in two bands, UVA and UVB) plus infrared and light.

So, if you go out and go to the beach and take a sunny day, you do damage to the body. Sure. Let's say the damage caused by a sunny day is, let's say, 1. We decide on a unit value to make proportions, nothing more.

So, if 1.0 is the damage of a normal day at the beach, how much is the damage if there is a cell phone, say 4G, at 100 meters?

So, let's say the cell is (for example) 1W of power. You certainly don't get everything in your head. How much do you get, 100 meters away? You can install the appropriate app and it will give you a reasonable answer, let's say -60dbm. Let's make it give you -60dBm, which is quite common when the signal is low. (we are on the beach).

What does it mean?

It means that for every milliwatt of power you get 1 NANOwatt. Small stuff. So if the cell is 5W, ie five thousand milliwatts, you are receiving 5000 nW, ie 5µW. Five microwatts. And so on. BUT we said that the cell was 1W, for reference and to simplify the calculations.

So how much energy do we get from the sun? Well, about 1KW per square meter. That makes + 60dBm. Take a good look: on the one hand there is a plus, on the other there is a minus.

So, the DBm, this mysterious: it is a logarithmic scale that describes the difference in proportions between two things. So, if the sun makes + 60dBm and the cell makes -60dBm, we have 120 dBm of difference. It means that if we sunbathe and there is also 5G we are, in proportion, about

1.0000000000000000001

Now, the proportion is gigantic: being logarithmic scales, if you consider that every 3 decibels you have doubled the power, this is the proportion. So, summing up: making extravagant assumptions, without distinguishing ionizing from non-ionizing radiation,

If you stay at the beach one day, the damage you suffer is:

• 1,0000000000000000001 (with telephone cell)
• 1.0000000000000000000 (without telephone cell).

You understand that the problem becomes complicated. And I am also optimistic, because I am not considering the fact that the sun sends out IONIZING radiations, which are much more devastating.

But even if they emitted the same frequencies, and even the cells used ionizing radiation, the damage ratio would be that.

What's the problem? The problem is that you can't measure the difference between 1.0000000000000000000 and 1.0000000000000000001. It is too small. It gets lost in the background noise.

What does it mean?

Imagine you are blind. Go to the beach. Can you measure the difference between day and night using the sun's heat? Obviously yes. Can you do this using the heat of Sirius? Um… obviously not. Sirius sends heat to earth, but what arrives is too little. And make no mistake, no one can do it: since there are enormously stronger sources of heat, such as the heat of a bacterium on your nose, the heat sent by Sirio is completely hidden from the background noise.

Why did I just give this example? Because a star that appears at -60dBm of brightness is Sirius. So if you used all of your skin to "see" the telephone frequencies, a cell would appear to you in the black sky as a dot the size of Sirius. While the sun would appear to you … always as like the sun's overflow.

And this is the problem with this type of measurement: even in the worst case scenario, if ALL the radiation from the cells hurt you, the damage to your body would be lost in the thermonuclear devastation (literally) you do when you go to the beach one day. .

The proportions are such that even the time you would spend in the toilet, therefore indoors, during the day on the beach would change the measure by falsifying it: if it took you 10 minutes, and the day lasts 1440 minutes, the delta would be enormously larger than what passes between 1.0000000000000000000 and 1.0000000000000000001.

Now you will say: but there are biologists who claim to have measured this damage at these frequencies. Sure. Read the paper as well. Read the amount of radiation they used to get that measure. Here, as you will notice the number of decibels changes a lot.

Could you be in a position, as those mice do, to be at -3 dBm from the phone cell? Sure. Since -3dBm you have them about 10cm apart, and your body is bigger than that, you just have to stick the cell in your ass and keep it all day. And you would have reproduced the conditions of those experiments.

There are experiments that show very clearly that putting a 5G phone cell in the ass and holding it for three months is even bad for mice. Science, as usual, teaches us.

So don't do it: it's scientifically proven. Putting working phone cells in your ass and holding them for three months hurts. But: if you turn it off, nothing happens. So go ahead with your fetish, but unplug the antennas before use.

But why do biologists do experiments with intensity that you would only get if you put a phone cell in your ass for three months? It is easy to say:

• As I ALREADY EXPLAINED, the measurable damage under normal conditions is too small to be measured. Biologists don't have a billion mice to observe for a billion years, and so they have to increase the potency, coincidentally, by 10¹⁸. Why am I not amazed?
• the biologist is interested in demonstrating whether this frequency hurts, what harm it does, which cells suffer, why they suffer, and other sadistic issues whose origins lie in their terrible childhoods, but he cannot measure the damage done in real conditions by a cell . Because, in fact, it is not possible.

This puts us in shit. In the sense that the phrase "so far no damage due to wireless telephone networks has been measured" does not mean that they do not exist: it means that they are too small to be measurable. So we have bad news and good news. Only the bad news is good. In short, a hedonistic morality.

• the first news is that there is no evidence of damage caused by cellular telephone networks.
• the second news is that there CAN be no such evidence, because such damage is too small to be detected.

So the answer is: we don't see any damage, and even if there was it would be too small to see.

Ultimately: if a sunny day seems like a "beautiful" day to be outdoors, and not a thermonuclear hell of UV ionizing radiation that devastates your cells, the fact that you are afraid of telephone cells is a diploma of stupidity .

If you are afraid of telephone cells, for you the sun is the antichrist himself. Or the sun is all in all beautiful on the skin, and then you stop poking at the telephone cells.

Stack of idiots.