5G : massive health threat?

[Obelix]

Obelix asks where the evidence is that trees need to be cut down to enable 5G to get into the adjacent houses. The evidence is in an academic paper produced by Oxford University, the Government and one of the mobile phone providers. It states that for 100% reception of 5G, 100% of the trees need to be cut down. Does Obelix have more technical knowledge of this subject than Oxford University?

 

On this sort of thing I would be considered an expert witness actually.

 

Your link or citation to this paper is.... where...?

[Rhyno]

Obelix asks where the evidence is that trees need to be cut down to enable 5G to get into the adjacent houses. The evidence is in an academic paper produced by Oxford University, the Government and one of the mobile phone providers. It states that for 100% reception of 5G, 100% of the trees need to be cut down. Does Obelix have more technical knowledge of this subject than Oxford University?

 

5G must be a bit rubbish if it can be stopped by a few trees.

 

But, like others, I’d quite like the evidence for your claims of catastrophic deforestation.

[Guest]

Obelix asks where the evidence is that trees need to be cut down to enable 5G to get into the adjacent houses. The evidence is in an academic paper produced by Oxford University, the Government and one of the mobile phone providers. It states that for 100% reception of 5G, 100% of the trees need to be cut down. Does Obelix have more technical knowledge of this subject than Oxford University?

 

OK, give us the title of this paper and when it was published, alternatively just point us at a link.

[Dronfieldman]

My mistake: the academic paper I was trying to refer to was actually produced by the University of Surry, the Government and Telefonica. Section 3.1 states "To avoid this shadowing loss and be outside of the Fresnel zone, it is necessary for the tree height to be at least 3m less than the base station height." The paper makes it clear that the high frequency involved in 5G can not penetrate trees of the same height as the transmitter. Hence the need, presumably, for Sheffield / Worcester / Gloucester etc. councils to cut down a vast proportion of the existing trees and replace them with saplings. The link is https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/White-Paper-Rural-5G-Vision_0.pdf.

[Robin-H]

My mistake: the academic paper I was trying to refer to was actually produced by the University of Surry, the Government and Telefonica. Section 3.1 states "To avoid this shadowing loss and be outside of the Fresnel zone, it is necessary for the tree height to be at least 3m less than the base station height." The paper makes it clear that the high frequency involved in 5G can not penetrate trees of the same height as the transmitter. Hence the need, presumably, for Sheffield / Worcester / Gloucester etc. councils to cut down a vast proportion of the existing trees and replace them with saplings. The link is https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/White-Paper-Rural-5G-Vision_0.pdf.

 

I think you need to do more research into the Fresnal Zone if you think that roadside trees would prevent 5G signals from entering properties.

 

Do you think trees effect the Fresnal zone in a way that houses don't?

[Cyclone]

5G must be a bit rubbish if it can be stopped by a few trees.

 

But, like others, I’d quite like the evidence for your claims of catastrophic deforestation.

 

It's short range, high bandwidth. It can be stopped by trees, walls, bodies. Anything at all substantial will stop the penetration.

Roadside trees are sparse and dispersed though, you'd need to stand inside a small wood to actually block the signal entirely.

[Obelix]

My mistake: the academic paper I was trying to refer to was actually produced by the University of Surry, the Government and Telefonica. Section 3.1 states "To avoid this shadowing loss and be outside of the Fresnel zone, it is necessary for the tree height to be at least 3m less than the base station height." The paper makes it clear that the high frequency involved in 5G can not penetrate trees of the same height as the transmitter. Hence the need, presumably, for Sheffield / Worcester / Gloucester etc. councils to cut down a vast proportion of the existing trees and replace them with saplings. The link is https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/White-Paper-Rural-5G-Vision_0.pdf.

 

I'm sorry where does it say in the paper that you have to cut down all these trees?

 

It's talking about BASE stations needing to be above the treeline. This is already well known and doesnt require all the trees cutting down. So where are you getting this from then?

 

As for needing 100% of signal at the far end - well let me put it this way. Is your hosue made entirely of glass? No? But you still get more than sufficient light through your windows to see yes? Despite the walls blocking more than I'd guess 80% of the light falling on your house...?

[Dozer]

But you still get more than sufficient light through your windows to see yes? Despite the walls blocking more than I'd guess 80% of the light falling on your house...?

 

 

Nice! I'm a fan of explanatory text -- this is a great and clear metaphor, and helped me understand your point.

[Dude111]

Cisco is putting rural UK locations first with 5G trials

 

http://5g.co.uk/news/cisco-is-putting-rural-locations-first-with-5g-trials/4330

 

 

5g brain cancer increases across gateshead

 

 

5G AND BRAIN CANCER - THE LINK - UNLAWFUL EXPERIMENT EXPOSING THE PEOPLE OF GATESHEAD TO THE UNTESTED 5G HIGH GAIN ANTENNAS IRRADIATING THE PEOPLE IN THEIR BEDROOMS WHILE SLEEPING. [more]

[Longcol]

Cisco is putting rural UK locations first with 5G trials

 

http://5g.co.uk/news/cisco-is-putting-rural-locations-first-with-5g-trials/4330

 

 

5g brain cancer increases across gateshead

 

 

Your 20k plus posts on the David Icke Forum qualify you for;