If you've ever wandered through a town, you may have seen tiny cell towers for 5G on the poles of street lights. http://tieburn0.xtgem.com/__xt_blog/__xtblog_entry/__xtblog_entry/33974743-how-far-away-can-1-be-from-the-5g-mobile-tower-before-becoming-harmful?__xtblog_block_id=1#xt_blog appear like tiny boxes however, they're actually transmitting wireless signals from mobile providers to your mobile.
These smaller towers are replacing the larger built cell towers. While they're not as noticeable but they can still cause issues for users.
It is the of the FCC's Radiation Exposure Thresholds
The FCC's Radiation Exposure Thresholds determine the safe distance that a person can be exposed to electromagnetic energy generated by wireless devices. The limits for exposure are based on research which show that the energy of RF could cause harm to health.
The rate of absorption called the specific absorption rate (SAR) is an indicator of the amount of radiofrequency energy that is taken up by tissues. safe distance to live from cell phone tower is typically 1.6 watts per kilogram, averaged over one gram of tissue.
But, since 5g operates at higher frequencies this could be able to create more energy on the skin and other directly-exposed body parts. This can lead to various possible harms, such as an increase in formation of skin disorders such as dermatitis, skin cancer and cataracts.
Due to the possible negative effects of 5G radiation, PSU has chosen to set a general localized maximum power density of four mW/cm2 based on the average across 1 centimeter, and never to exceed 30 minutes, for the entire 5G spectrum at 3000 GHz. This limit for localization is in line with the maximum SAR that is spatially averaged at 1.6 W/kg, which is averaged over 1 5 grams of body tissue, at 6 GHz.
The FCC's Maximum Exposure Thresholds
If you've ever used a cell phone, you probably know that the safest range from the tower is around 400 meters. This is due to the power of transmission from the cell tower is significantly increased the farther you are from it.
While this sounds like an ideal idea, the reality is that people who live close to towers might be more prone to health issues. For instance, a study conducted in 2014 in India discovered that people who lived within 50 meters of cell towers experienced significantly more health complaints than those who lived farther away from the antennas.
This study revealed that those who relocated to areas that were further from cell towers experienced their symptoms return to normal within a couple of days. Studies have also shown that exposure to high levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can lead to brain tumors, cancer, and other health problems.
This is due to the fact that radiofrequency radiation, which is utilized in wireless communications, may penetrate the body's outer layer of skin. It is crucial to know because the skin acts as a shield against mechanical injury, infection caused by pathogenic microorganisms and infiltration of toxic substances. The skin is the most important organ in the human body. It is responsible for keeping the integrity of the other organs.
The FCC's Minimum Exposure Thresholds
The FCC's Minimum Exposure Thresholds rely on numerous assumptions that are not supported by scientific evidence. They include the false belief that short-term exposures to RF radiation are safe because of the minimal absorption into body (i.e. the heating of tissues).
what is a safe distance from a cell tower ignores the deeper penetration of the ELF parts of modulated RF signals as well as the consequences of short bursts of heat from pulsed RF waves. These theories are not compatible with current understanding of the biological effects of RF radiation, and thus, they should not be relied upon for health-protection exposure standards.
In addition to that, ICNIRP and FCC limit their maximum limit of exposure to the local SARs that are based on the maximum frequency of absorption (psSAR) which is an inadequate dosimetric tool to assess the amount of radiation exposure. In particular the psSAR tool is not accurate for frequencies above 6 GHz. In addition, psSAR is not been tested for RF radiation with co-exposure to other environmental agents such like sunlight. The interactions of RF radiation and other agents in the environment could produce synergistic or antagonistic results. This can lead to the risk of having adverse health effects. For example, co-exposure to RF radiation and sunlight could raise the chance of developing skin cancer and exacerbate other skin diseases such as acne.