Here it is. Feel free to critique.

The penetration of the misinformation is staggering. It smacks of religion.

Big Clive

Your video was one of the first references I’d seen about this ( I’m a doctor and we’ve been kind of busy) I work with a lot of intelligent people. When, however, I mentioned this subject in a mildly ridiculing way, I soon found that there were real believers in the deleterious effects of 5G. They looked at me as if I were the uninformed, and thus to be sort of pitied for not having seen the dangers of 5G. I was amazed at the certainty of the held belief.

They are closer, but much lower power. Try to think of it as just a local wifi network in the street. The main advantage from an RF safety perspective is that your phone will also only have to operate at low power because the beacon is so near. Current 2G, 3G and 4G technology often uses remote towers and your phone will generate much more RF to communicate with them. Keep in mind that every house usually has a wifi router, phones, tablets and laptops in it transmitting at 2.4 and 5GHz. When you look for wifi networks you'll see neighbours networks too. 5G is like that, but just with a node out in the street.

Big Clive

You talked about that 5G uses lower energy than 4G. BTW, I'm totally fine with 5G. But I wonder if the lower energy is compensated for by the fact that the beacons are much closer.

MrTridac

I actually hear the d-d-d-d occasionally. I call it "morse code". I assumed it was from head trauma, not so much to do with radio signals.

Ardeof

Well said Clive. As a telecommunications technician, I understand and agree with your logic. Your explanation is fine to the layman. If the antagonists don't understand it, then it shows how idiotic they are.

Loved it.

Michael Thompson

I always populate the tags section of each video with appropriate keywords. Never really thought of using hashtags.

Big Clive

I appreciate that it is often tricky to get the average layman or laywoman whom will have often forgotten even much of the knowledge of physics they learned many years ago at school to get their understanding on something like this without someone trying to exploit social fear for their benefit. I will never claim to be an expert on RF and especially so on its possible effects on organisms - but that's because I'll defer to those whom have spent years if not decades on the matter actually knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately I still know people, including relations, whom too easily swallow cranckery like this latest one. To try and keep things reasonably simple, I tend to make the following points (I won't go into much detail in this post or I'll never get it finished!) * Research has been conducted on the effects radio frequencies, and indeed pretty much all of the frequency spectrum from DC to petahertz and beyond by hundreds of government, public and private research bodies and groups for well over a century to the present day. The general international scientific consensus is that frequencies/wavelengths referred to as "RF" is safe except in some extremely rare & exceptional cases where members of the public should never be put into a position to be there. I'd be referring to the likes of old MW masts that have tens if not hundreds of kilowatts of effective radiated power, or VHF or UHF broadcast aerials that have similar ERP levels. RF burns is something well known in radiocommunications engineering thanks to the way that such frequencies can warm up human tissue - that's why for example TV & Radio masts or towers have their transmissions either switched off or on reduced power for engineers or technicians to work on them. But again the average Joe or Jane is never expected to work or live in such potentially dangerous places, and for that reason everyday items that can transmit RF are restricted to such low powers that are well below even levels deemed to be safe thanks to a multitude of research that is continuously being tested. * 5G frequencies - outside of the Americas, pretty much every "5G network" that has been launched so far uses transceivers in the 3400 to 3800 MHz band. These frequencies have for decades been used for geostationary satellite downlinks more commonly known as the "C Band" (originally 3700 to 4200 MHz, extended down to 3400 MHz a couple of decades back) that continues to this day, so these frequencies have rained down from the sky from a multitude of transmitters from approx 36,000 km away to essentially 99.9999% of earth's inhabitants since the late 1960's/early 1970's. Of course, by the time these signals reach ground they are very weak that they need a high gain aerial (usually a parabolic dish) to make them useful to receive, but then again with many cranks NO level of RF radiation, no matter how tiny, is safe as far as they're concerned. These same frequencies have also been used terrestrially for decades in different countries for point-to-point links and also in more recent years for fixed or portable Internet service provision - normally using WiMax or TDD-LTE. The best example in the UK is the "3 Broadband" service in London & Swindon that was previously branded as "Relish". * Much research has been done into cellular systems from the old 0G & 1G systems and later into the effect of UHF frequencies used in transceivers on organisms. I haven't read anything yet that indicates that 5G-NR networks will require subscribers to use devices that have capabilities to have ERPs significantly higher than those already in use - 2G GSM handsets in the 900 MHz bands are capable of putting out 2W of radiated power where link conditions are weak/difficult. Even then, the networks always negotiate to ensure the lowest practical power for both the subscriber handset and and the BTS (or base station) to ensure a good quality link and help prevent interference with other subscribers. The only times the highest powers are used is when the subscriber is on the utter brink of the coverage of the network. * There is pretty much nothing left to discover in researching the effects of RF up to around 6 GHz (6000 MHz) that hasn't already been done. * As for frequencies above 6 GHz, which is what is being touted for 5G data speeds that could rival current FTTH speeds, they too have had significant use for a number of decades, the most likely known to the public being DTH satellite television in Ku Band frequencies (in Europe & the rest of ITU Region 1 this is 10700 to 12750 MHz, other parts of the world may have less bandwidth). Europe is utterly bathed with these Ku Band transmissions from geostationary satellites. Then there's also Ka Band satellite communications which is commonly used for internet access in many remote and rural parts of the planet - these installations have a transceiver on the dish for uplink comms to the geostationary satellite anything from 36,000 to 40,000 km or (depends on angles between ground station & the geostationary satellite). In Europe the most well known providers include Avanti, Eutelsat Tooway & Astra Connect. The uplink from subscriber dishes of such providers is in around 30 GHz, or just above the set aside band of 26 to 29 GHz that most countries have planned for the "wideband" 5G networks. When you consider the distance that the ground station has to cover to reach the geostationary satellite, not to mention varying atmospheric conditions that can easily attenuate transmissions at such frequencies in wet weather and humid climates, the ERP emitted is in the range of tens of Watts after antenna gain is factored - I've not heard of any birds suddenly falling out of the sky just because they were unlucky to get between the beam from ground station to satellite and be zapped by varying Watts of RF energy at a 30 GHz. * Finally, for now, the claim that something like 5G technology should not be introduced until it is "proven safe" and won't cause future problems is a dishonest example of reverse burden of proof and runs contrary to the scientific method. Outside of some elements of mathematics, you can't conclusively prove a negative in science. What you can do is demonstrate that something is essentially safe based on the testing, knowledge and past research to the point that an exception would statistically be an extraordinary unlucky occasion to happen to you. Certain scientific "laws" are well established, but facts never stand still, and something that may have been deemed safe in the past may now show up as being potentially hazardous in some cases. But that's the way of the world and has been since the ages of the hunter-gatherer - you cannot completely eliminate risk, and almost everything someone does always has at least a tiny amount of potential harm no matter how well prepared they are. For example, do you test any meat you buy from a local butcher for botulism and e-coli before cooking or consumption? Most reasonable people don't, and rely instead on local food safety authorities to enforce standard to minimise risks of them falling ill - but there's always still an outside chance that either something falls through the cracks, or that at home preparing the meal can involve cross-contamination. But with our learned knowledge and experience, as well as trust in the system around us, we deem the risk acceptable. And on that basis, given the complete international knowledge of RF emissions, modulation schemes and ongoing research, IMO the technology that makes up "5G" cellular networks is safe in the sense that it is as safe as any other public cellular system that has been in place. If we are to take the case as if it was dragged through a court of law (in a common law country, at least), 5G is innocent until proven (or presumed) guilty. It is up to those whom deem 5G "guilty" to demonstrate sufficient evidence to convince. And circumstancial, weak coincidence, anecdotes won't cut it. Neither does a one-off research paper that delivers results contrary to those expected where they are either not followed up upon or where the testing has not been of an expected standard.

That was good Clive, RF is a tricky, sometimes counterintuitive subject, and you explained it well.

Gordo

I've already had an angry response from the guy who does the scaremongering street light videos. He thinks I don't know what EMPs and DEWs are. I do - at a circuitry level. And they have nothing whatsoever to do with 5G.

Big Clive

The lower frequency for the final hop to the mobile devices does make sense. Better penetration and less directional. The tower links at the higher frequency also make sense in terms of directionality for efficiency and higher data throughput.

Big Clive

Hi! One of the many hats I wear at work is RF Engineer, and this video is a great example of making something that isn't too technical but still gets the point across. It looks fine to me for wide-release. Just a side note -- Carriers (at least here in the States) like to use the lower frequencies for the Tower to Mobile Device (300 MHz - 3.5 GHz [ish] ) and higher frequencies (5.x GHz - 30 GHz) for the point-to-point links between towers. We use the Lower 6 GHz, 11 GHz, and 18 GHz bands in our WISP. We don't go much higher than 18 GHz because we have to build in too much fade margin to counteract the physical interference from things like rain and fog for the link to be reliable over more usable distances. 30 GHz could be good for links between microcells on lamp posts, however.

Brendan Meteer

Thanks as always Clive and maybe it'll do some good. Did you consider using some hashtags in the description?

Mike Page

Good luck in pulling this off. For I know of some conspiracy theorists, who have a very cavalier attitude.

Andrew Donaldson

Sadly they are terminating the 2G service in the UK and many devices that rely on GSM communication will stop working.

Big Clive

You have a good point. I may do the express short version later once I've seen how much rage I get for this one. The problem with making a video like this is that there are so many ways the content could be laid out and only a few work completely smoothly. If I was doing this BBC-style I'd have a script written and tweaked over a week or more. But I really have about a day to make a video like this and the best version is always the first for fluidity even though it may not present things in the right order.

Big Clive

One subject that might grab attention would be the radioactive gas Radon, maybe titled like "Forget 5G, let's talk about deadly radiation in people's homes". Our house tested close to the action level for radon mitigation (151Bq/m3). When my uncle died of lung cancer a few years ago, a radon test found his house to have 400Bq/m3, double the limit for taking action, i.e. radon mitigation.

Seán Byrne

A couple of years ago some 'flat earther' started a petition in Mum's village against a GSM mast which was seeking planning permission. They had prepared a 5-page document full of unfounded claims such as 'there is a school nearby, our children will be affected' despite the fact that the proposed mast was 1km away from the school. I wrote the originator an email refuting/explaining most, if not all, of their claims and saying that I wouldn't be signing the petition for the reasons given. For some reason they didn't reply! In the end the 300 or so signatures weren't enough to prevent planning permission being granted and we now have a rather elegant telegraph pole-like mast which disturbs no-one and provides the GSM service we all depend on these days. Some people are just too set in their ways to understand logic and reasoning...

Stephen Eyles

This is good news: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52198946

Mike Knell

Thank you for this video Clive.

I think there's a lot of value in front-loading the key things you want the audience to absorb, and in terms they can absorb. Literally start with something like "5G, the new lowest-power way of your phone to get reception, is ...". Then the good diagram you had of transmitters and house antennas leading down to why 5G masts are around ("because the signal used is so low power compared to the older standards"). And then everything else, including any qualifications of the above of course. . I think (dangerous assumptions that I'm making) your usual audience loves your thoroughness and clarity and the logical progression through a topic stopping to examine issues as they come up. Or at least I do. But also I think the audience you most want to target with _this_ video, are likely to click away within 20 seconds. So for this one, get your punches in quick before getting into the proper explanation.

PeteyPak

From experience trying to have conversations with the wife of one of my friends: If you're re-doing it anyway, re-word the bit at the start where you said that introducing 5G means the "Some of the stuff in 2G areas is going to stop working". No matter how clear you and the context are it's the sort of thing the stupid and the malicious will latch onto. You'll be hearing about how "5G is going to break things, you just said so yourself"

PeteyPak

To make a truly thorough video would turn it into a complete guide to 5G and it would end up a huge video that could only be appreciated by 5G gurus. It would also require that I learned everything there was to know about 5G for a single video. It's a debunking video that simply couldn;t be worse than their often very misleading videos. I may add a disclaimer in the description saying that it's a very condensed snapshot of the technology and that other bands are used elsewhere in the world.

Big Clive

It's designed to catch the attention of the people who only want to watch the videos supporting their conspiracy.

Big Clive

The frequencies being used here are sub 5GHz. I'm not convinced that going higher is actually a good idea. The video is trying to address a few of the conspiracy aspects. It's a very vague look at the science because to make a video that covered it properly would result in a massive video that was extremely boring.

Big Clive

The early wireless CCTV cameras sometimes wiped out WiFi when running.

Big Clive

I would question the graphic at the start. I think some may see it and instantly dismiss it

Neil Tonks

(it's also worth noting extremely stringent the safety rules are for people working on masts with powered antennas exactly *because* exposure to high-power RF especially at higher frequences can be extremely damaging. You don't want to be stuck in front of a microwave link dish if you can help it. However, that would probably muddy the water as the crazies cry out "Aha! You see? Professionals admit it's dangerous!"

Mike Knell

It's also worth noting that things like SHF backhauls between masts (i.e. point to point microwave links) are even more pernickerty than the lighthouse analogy suggests - because the antennas used (almost invariably dishes, occasionally horns) are so extremely directional it's more akin to someone shining a torch through a telescope while someone at the other end looks through a telescope trying to find the glimmer of light being shone at them from the other end. The other point to make about radio in general is that your use of 10m as an example wavelength for early AM broadcasting is an order of magnitude out - the first AM broadcasting was in what is still the AM broadcast band, around the 300m mark, with long wave coming along a little later. Then you get into the weird world of ELF (officially 3-30kHz) where radio waves would be audible to the human ear if they were sound waves (which, obviously, they're not) and data rates are so low that even with wire antennas tens of kilometres long driven by megawatts of power only a few characters a minute can be reliably transmitted. A walk through the RF spectrum is a pretty fascinating thing..

Mike Knell

Just a reminder Clive, there are people out there convinced that the Earth is flat! Some minds simply reject facts because facts are inconvenient. But it’s a wonderful attempt to correct them of the fact that one dies of radio transmissions.

I really enjoyed that. None of it surprising of course but great to see the information presented in your usual style.

“Dirty electricity” Oh my!

Clive. The parts where you are confident from personal knowledge/experience like the power supplies section at the end are strong. I'm a data network engineer but even with my limited knowledge of radio, a enough of the rest is either partially right, dubious or potentially misleading to give me concerns. Even non-safety matters like 2G/3G retirement advice, use of micro-cells via macro-cells for 5G is locally varying, use of sub-6Ghz via mmWave spectrum again varies between regions. While the motivations are excellent, I'm concerned at the misinformation and your credibility impact on discussing in authoritative way topics beyond your peak skill-set.

Steven Clarke

To me it seems like a video about ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation for the mildly informed with a lot of incidental information and speculation about cellular networks & other technologies, but, you’re selling it like it’s going to debunk 5G death beam misinformation for the layperson among this current news cycle of COVID-19 causing 5G activated chemtrail conspiracy theory non-sense. I think you should significantly reduce the scope of the video to just debunking one obviously fake trend. Eg. a video solely about laughing at this guy who’s pointing at PSU modules in streetlight poles and calling them 5G death beam contraptions, this would be a much clearer and more entertaining video, just take a screenshot of the device he’s showing and explain what’s going on in it and how he couldn’t be further from the truth. Or ‘Misconceptions about radiation’ explaining how not all radiation is ionizing and how a 5G base station can’t possibly emit ionizing radiation. That way you’d avoid the more complex subjects about 5G spectral energy density safety and the geopolitical and regulatory shit show surrounding its development & deployment. The main problem I have in the video is you’re trying to address one conspiracy theory (5G death beams) by explaining how 5G wavelengths are safe because they’re non-ionizing, but you go on to say you can cook sausages with non-ionizing radiation at high power densities (that’s proof for the nutjob theories). But this is the crux of the actually reasonable 5G safety concerns I’ve heard, while you’re not going to cook a sausage on a 5G base station they do have phased array beam forming that operate near the FCC/FDA limits to get the highest possible bits/Hz and thus highest available bandwidth for the lowest spectrum cost. Combine that with the future of massive MIMO and widespread deployment, the questionable planning permission/design rules, the political and governmental mistrust among the public about the safe exposure limits and the questionable testing methodologies, I don’t buy all of it but I can see why people have this concern. But you don’t really address any of this and it would be a long complex video of you did. You also say a few things and make a few mistakes which come off to me as if you don’t really know how 5G works or how it’s structured, eg. you claim 5.8 GHz WiFi routers are higher frequency than 5G mmWave handsets (typ. 28 & 39 GHz)? Sorry for the harsh criticism, I know it’s just a pretty casual single take YouTube video and it’s probably fine for most of your normal audience but I feel it might not do what you want it to do and could be easily criticized or ignored or misunderstood by either those with a reasonable concern or conspiracy theory loonies.

WizardTim

Many baby monitors use 2.4 GHz

Mike Bird

Wifi reception on my toilet is so good is because the Internet is full of shit.

Whilst I have zero confidence that you'll convince the conspiracy nutbars, having a source out there with some actual facts for the rational (or at least semi-rational) people is a "good thing"(tm) Sadly the comments on this one will undoubtedly turn into a toxic cess pit of stupidity, but unfortunately that can't be helped.

Jrandom Bob

Add the guy (name temporarily escapes me) who does "The Signal Path" to that list if you want to do that, dude specialises in microwave/millimeter wave technology

Jrandom Bob

I kinda want the conspiracy nutters to watch it. They only really want to watch videos that support their cause.

Big Clive

Some of the scientists seem to have great credentials but then blow it with statements that suggest a less than scientific approach. I'm open minded though.

Big Clive

I wonder if this is something it's worth getting the collective of moderately scathing large YT engineers to collaborate on - EEVBlog, Electroboom, AvE and yourself, on a group video, or providing snippets in the parts they specialise in?

Steven Raith

Professor /emeritus/ Pall (he's retired) tends to link a lot of things without thinking them through, or at least without explaining how these different things can be linked.He's *way out there* in the medical counter-culture.

Had a "Discussion" about this very subject on twitter a few days ago, Some guy in Edinburgh was blaming 5G antennas on street lights in Edinburgh on a mysterious interference being caused to peoples phones and computers in the City. He was most adamant he was correct. I gave up in the end as some people are just to pig headed to listen to facts. Good video, Are you releasing this video, because it is very informative?

Mike Hughes

Quack remedies, conspiracy theories, it seems like we are going backwards instead of forwards.

Mark Trombley

The thumbnail worries me... It makes it look like you're promoting that they are in fact death beams. Really, everything needs to say you're not promoting this 5G BS and actually debunking it. The thumbnail doesn't say that in my mind (as funny as it is).

Stuart V

I too am not an RF expert (software), but long time past used to work in industry in a department of a major corporation that, among other things, used to try to make stuff go wrong by blasting it with RF. My colleagues at the time had the largest RF sealed enclosure in Europe, and prided themselves on being able to generate fields in the 500 V/m range. Now I know we're not talking about anything like that here, but one interesting fact I do remember is that there were certain spot frequencies – or narrow bands – that were unusually dangerous to humans. These were at wavelengths such that vaguely spherical bodily organs such as eyeballs and – ahem – testes acted as antennae, and as a result got hot. Having your goolies fried is not a great idea. It may or may not have been a coincidence, but during the three-four years I worked there, many of my colleagues begat daughters, but no-one had a male child. Anyway, as I say, we're talking high-level near-field stuff, but my point is that I don't know what these specific danger bands are, but others more knowledgeable than me here might.

I know I probably won't change your mind, but that guy is a pseudoscientist. Here's some background on him (sadly only in German): https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Karl_Maret

Nicely Done Clive, Well done. Totally agree. In today's culture the voice of ignorance is often louder. - What's the point of education when you can shout louder. Good Luck!

something to bear in mind 5g spec includes existing frequencies as well as milimeter bands (24-90ghz) which is way above the frequencies of the 5ghz router in your home. Not that i feel this is any more dangerous given the amount of penetration power it has (something to do with half the wavelength).

Russell Peake

I knew I was going to get spanked by the radio hams. I probably sounded like an RF noob.

Big Clive

If only they'd put in a capacitor it could have shunted the viral energy instead of beaming it into people's brains.

Big Clive

Conspiracy theorists give way too much credit to the conspirators. I think some people just crave the attention they can't get through being genuinely interesting/intelligent/insightful.

Wim

I'm open to correction. It would be hard to make a more misleading video than the conspiracy ones, but I also don't want to spread misinformation.

Big Clive

Just a nit: the standard AM broadcast band (in the US) goes from 540 KHz to 1700 KHz, so the median wavelength is around 365 meters (wavelength in meters = 300 / ƒ in MHz). The "top band" for amateur radio here starts at 160 meters. A very impractical length, unless you have a LOT of land. So a lot of us use much compromised antennas – mine is around 32 meters suspended at 40 feet (ack...12 meters). I don't make many contacts, but enough to know the thing is working. Anyway, as you say, I digress. When you got to the spectrum part, it occurred to me that 10 meters was far enough away from the broadcast band that my eye twitched a bit. The closest outside of amateur radio would be 11 meters – better known as CB radio. You know, the "How 'bout it Rubber Duck, you got your ears on?", Smokey and the Bandit, and Convoy kind. But, I digress again. 😃 "'3s, we gone!" 🤦🏻‍♂️ gawd. Yes, I was there. Smack in the middle of it. Even selling and repairing them. My sister and BIL met through CB. And...oh, there I go again. Anyway, keep poking that hornets nest! It needs to be done and I can't think of a better person to do the poking! Thanks!

But what about 5Gs ability to help spread Corona Virus??? :P

Scott Miller

If I called it "Why 5G is safe" the conspiracy believers wouldn't watch it. But I'm open to title suggestions.

Big Clive

They Live! They have gotten to Big Clive!

Lostngone

See the extensive list of Research Summaries here, https://bioinitiative.org/

"Prof. Martin Pall - Cellular Effects of Wi-fi and 5G via VGCC" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsaB7ewFsN0

I'm an electrical engineer myself. What many RF engineers are missing, is that cellular effects are not only the result of thermal (heating) of cells. There are very highly sensitive channels in cells, called VGCC's voltage gated calcium channels. These are exquisitely sensitive to RF / EMF radiation. If an external EMF opens these channels, many oxidation reactions occur that result in biochemical cascades of negative effects. This is subtle, to be sure, but the science is now getting very clear on how the range of EMF health effects are not protected by existing RF radiation level standards. The most definitive VGCC work is by Dr. Martin Pall, professor at Washington State University in Portland, OR. https://www.google.com/search?q=vgcc+pall https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

Here is December 2019 presentation by Dr. Karl Maret, MD, MSEE, on 5G health impacts. https://vimeo.com/380754322

The only concern I'd have is that YouTube will misidentify this video as one of the conspiracy ones and demoneitise or remove your entire channel. I can't imagine their algorithms are smart enough to discern between conspiracy and fact relating to 5G.

Michael Buchan

let's see when YouTube comes down the hammer... since they want to enforce the deletion of 5G related videos in order to stop people from burning tech ;)

Tim Albers