Sensible scientists in FCC want 95 GHz spike and power safety measurements to be averaged over 1 second. Toxic industry wants averaging over 25 minutes, 1,500 times worse. No shock there, but incredible danger.
5G Waveforms: We Need To Know More
Controversy over Averaging Times
There’s been a lot of talk about the frequencies used in 5G wireless signals. But very little about what the waveforms of this radiation look like.
Or, to put it another way: How fast are 5G pulses? And how powerful are they?
Behind the scenes, there’s been a contentious dispute with some of the best known researchers in the field on opposing sides.
Just last week, the wireless industry was lobbying the U.S. FCC to shelve some proposed rules to tighten the existing limits for these short bursts of radiation.
https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/5g-waveforms-dispute
5G Waveforms in Dispute
Ken Foster & Niels Kuster Disagree on Averaging Times
SOURCE MICROWAVE NEWS COM
[url]https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/5g-waveforms-dispute[/url]
September 25, 2020
Very little has been written in the popular media about the waveforms used in 5G signals. Two outstanding questions are: How fast are the pulses? How powerful are they?
In 2018, Esra Neufeld and Niels Kuster of the IT’IS Foundation in Zurich issued a warning in a paper in Health Physics, urging that existing exposure standards be revised with shorter averaging times to address potential thermal damage from short and strong pulses:
“Extreme broadband wireless devices operating above 10 GHz may transmit data in bursts of a few milliseconds to seconds. Even though the time- and area-averaged power density values remain within the acceptable safety limits for continuous exposure, these bursts may lead to short temperature spikes in the skin of exposed people. … [Our] results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the ICNIRP guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.”
In a letter to the journal, Ken Foster* of the University of Pennsylvania countered that their claims do not hold up:
“Because real-world communications technologies produce pulses of much lower fluence than the extreme pulses considered by Neufeld and Kuster, the resulting thermal transients from them will be very tiny in any event.”
Neufeld and Kuster’s response to Foster is here.
(Keep in mind that as the averaging time increases, radiation peaks smooth out and compliance with exposure limits becomes easier.)
FCC Proposes Shorter Averaging Times
In its proposed revision of its own RF rules, issued last December, the U.S. FCC appeared to side with Kuster, expressing concern over the many wireless devices that “transmit in short bursts.” Here is part of what the FCC stated:
FCC NPRM Graph 136, 2019
The FCC put forward shorter averaging times for signals at higher frequencies —dropping down to 1 second above 95 GHz. These are detailed in the table below. In contrast, the averaging times in the ICNIRP and IEEE standards are as high as 25 minutes.
Table 3, FCC NPRM 2019
Now, the wireless industry is asking the FCC to favor Foster’s views over Kuster’s. Last week, a team from the Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) —formerly known as the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF)— held a virtual meeting with members of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and lobbied for the withdrawal of the proposed new averaging times.
FULL ARTICLE AT SOURCE
[url]https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/5g-waveforms-dispute[/url]
[pic=5f6f60376d42ba13d5577dc3 /]
[pic=5f6f60376d42ba13d5577dc5 /]
[pic=5f6f60376d42ba13d5577dc7 /]