Dangerous 5G cellular vs simple 5GHz wifi channels

[patent10021]

There are always 2.4 GHz and 5GHz channels on a network and then there is the new 5G cellular. 5GHz channels have been around for years but the new 5G cellular is new and is controversial.

Whenever you see 2/5GHz network choices this has nothing to do with the damaging 5G cellular tech right?

 

[jav6454]

5G is not synonymous with 5GHz

5G is short for 5th Generation and 5GHz is 5 Gigahertz, in which a hertz is the SI unit of frequency, equal to one cycle per second. In this case the cycle is given by light wavelengths.

 

[jtara]

the damaging 5G cellular tech right

Guess I've missed the "controversy" about the "damaging" 5G cellular tech.

But, no, one is a set of encoding and beam-forming standards (5G Cellular - the "G" stands for "generation", so "5th generation") and the other is a frequency range (5 Gigahertz).

I was curious about what the "controversy" was, so I did a search. I found this article from CBS News, a source that I trust:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5g-network-cell-towers-raise-health-concerns-for-some-residents/

The "controversy" has nothing to do with the technology itself. It's about the fact that it will require more antennas, and - in theory - that means it's more likely that an antenna or antennas will be closer to your home than now.

Don't take the worries of non-scientific NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) as gospel. I think they are more concerned about an ugly cell tower in their front yard than any potential health effects.

And, no, property values are not going to go down 20% (as a NIMBY is quoted in the article above) due to 5G cellular. Though I have no doubt that property values are about to go down 20% - across the board- for other reasons.

5G Cellular uses the same or similar frequencies as current cellular, and ADDITIONALLY can uses much higher frequencies - "milimeter waves" in the 24-86gHz range.

The fact that some non-scientific NIMBYs and Chicken-Littles ("the sky is falling!") think it is a health risk does not make it so.

BTW microwave ovens use the 2.4 gHz range, the same as low-band WiFi. They operate at much higher power (800-1200 watts) than cell. They are shielded to keep that power from getting out, but, still, the typical leakage is much greater than the intentional radiation from a cell phone. Older ones tend to leak more, both due to less careful design, and deterioration of seals. And the 2.4 gHz range was selected because it is ideal for heating water inside of biological cells and bursting the cell walls.

Have a microwave oven? Have WiFi? If you are concerned about health effects, you may have a "bigger fish to fry", er, microwave...

 

[C DM]

There are always 2.4 GHz and 5GHz channels on a network and then there is the new 5G cellular. 5GHz channels have been around for years but the new 5G cellular is new and is controversial.

Whenever you see 2/5GHz network choices this has nothing to do with the damaging 5G cellular tech right?

Seems like you just mentioned that they are not the same thing and basically aren't related. And then you seem to ask if they have something to do with each other? (On top of already sort of passively including something about something being damaging.)

Also, https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-5g-dangerous.2161046/

 

[MacNut]

5G will take forever to roll out. Just too much build out and cities will be fighting the placement of antennas.

 

[smallcoffee]

Don't take the worries of non-scientific NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) as gospel. I think they are more concerned about an ugly cell tower in their front yard than any potential health effects.

And they should be, as it has no positive effect on their property value, and is unsightly. I don't get this attitude people have toward people who don't want undesirable things near their property. I suspect most either don't own property, or own property and haven't had to face a similar situation. It's like the people complaining that neighborhoods in the Bay Area don't want to live in Tokyo-style housing - it's their neighborhood so it's their rules. Don't like how they do things, you're free to move elsewhere.

 

[jtara]

And they should be, as it has no positive effect on their property value, and is unsightly.

Really, it should INCREASE property value, and need not be unsightly, if done right.

Few people have land-lines any more. At the same time, indoor cell phone reception often sucks.

In theory, I think property values are decreased if the property is in a cell phone "black hole".

However, people seldom check. I wonder how many people casually notice, though, while viewing a property, and they can't make a call. Wonder how many make the correlation, and think "I could not put up with that"?

I've a friend who has an industrial warehouse, and a part of a city block of apartments, and wants to eventually put both on the market. I'm going to help him order a fiber survey for both locations. It will enhance sale-ability and value to know in advance the cost of bringing fibre to the warehouse and to the apartment block. (Would be a teardown project most likely.) Unfortunately, the apartment block is indeed in a cell phone "black hole". I keep bugging him to lobby the carrier for better coverage.

Connectivity is terribly important to property value today, for almost ANY usage. Hell, even farmland, because apps used to manage almost every aspect of modern farms. Savvy buyers will increasingly examine that aspect of the property.

Wanting the cell towers to go away is, as my grandmother would have said "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

 

[smallcoffee]

Really, it should INCREASE property value, and need not be unsightly, if done right.

Few people have land-lines any more. At the same time, indoor cell phone reception often sucks.

In theory, I think property values are decreased if the property is in a cell phone "black hole".

However, people seldom check. I wonder how many people casually notice, though, while viewing a property, and they can't make a call. Wonder how many make the correlation, and think "I could not put up with that"?

I've a friend who has an industrial warehouse, and a part of a city block of apartments, and wants to eventually put both on the market. I'm going to help him order a fiber survey for both locations. It will enhance sale-ability and value to know in advance the cost of bringing fibre to the warehouse and to the apartment block. (Would be a teardown project most likely.) Unfortunately, the apartment block is indeed in a cell phone "black hole". I keep bugging him to lobby the carrier for better coverage.

Connectivity is terribly important to property value today, for almost ANY usage. Hell, even farmland, because apps used to manage almost every aspect of modern farms. Savvy buyers will increasingly examine that aspect of the property.

Wanting the cell towers to go away is, as my grandmother would have said "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

Nah I think it’s still overall neutral st best. People expect good service and if you have it, then it’s just as expected and if you don’t then that’s a decrease. And sure you could have a tower that isn’t unsightly but I imagine it requires planning, thought, consideration, and extra money to make that happen, which isn’t in the interest of those constructing the tower.

 

[MileHighPilot]

However, people seldom check. I wonder how many people casually notice, though, while viewing a property, and they can't make a call. Wonder how many make the correlation, and think "I could not put up with that"?

that is the first thing i check when looking at property or a house in person
ive walked away from a few places i was looking to rent due to no cell coverage

 

[smallcoffee]

that is the first thing i check when looking at property or a house in person
ive walked away from a few places i was looking to rent due to no cell coverage

For places where there was mobile coverage did you think to yourself something like "This place is more valuable now" or did it have an effect on the price you were willing to pay?

 

[MileHighPilot]

For places where there was mobile coverage did you think to yourself something like "This place is more valuable now" or did it have an effect on the price you were willing to pay?

in today's time i dont see why property would be more valuable now since it has coverage
as you eluded to in another post good service is expected and poor service is a decrease
the only way mobile coverage would have an effect on what i would pay for property is if there is no coverage and i was guaranteed to get a tower on that property
i have some property in another state that has a cell tower on it and the property is paying for itself
twice were houses i was looking to rent since i was only going to be living there for a short time
in that case the effect it had was that i would not live there since i was required to be reachable at all times
the third and final time it happened was when i was looking at property to build a house on
i liked the property but no cell service and the property not having electric or tv/internet running to it would make it more expensive than the property my wife liked
we ended up getting the property my wife liked and built a house on it