5G ON: T-Mobile 5G Network is Activated in the USA

How long would it take to blow 2GB monthly data plan with 5G? Less than minute?

 

I have unlimited data plan with T mobile, not even Madagascar have 2gb data plans.

 

How long until everyone grows a tumor?

 

when you use (lots of) data, you usually dont have the phone close to your head.
and so far no one can prove its a definitive cause.
i guarantee, most ppl will get it much sooner from their tap water/air/soil/food.

 

1041 days.

 

Here in Canada we still have phone plans costing around 80$ a month with 2gb caps, currently with these ridiculous caps I'd be fine with 3g network or worse.

 

Yeah that's true, talked to my family over there last summer, mobile plans are quit expensive. Land line internet though (in urban areas!) is relatively cheap in the Eastern parts. I was amazed

 

I'm wary of everything that starts with a T- we know their AI is out to get us

I don't know sverek but what I can tell you is that with 10Gbit internet I downloaded 576Gbs in 30min so that gives you an idea lol (completely irrealistic usage of course I had to queue games files and 4k-8k videos in p2p,youtube,dailymotion,steam,uplay,origin, linux isos direct downloads etc.. and try to start all the downloads at the same time it took me more time to set it up than to download
anyways providers will have to limit it, it's just not possible to have unlimited plans with that speed, it's a "different" world one where you stop counting in Gbs and start with the Tbs
personal record comes from the MS Store (steam and all the others aren't that fast)
https://i.**********/dth0qbLP/Whats-App-Image-2019-11-22-at-15-08-10.jpg
I'm really curious about what it'll do to battery life, 10Gbe is hardcore in cpu usage and generated heat (by the NIC) on a desktop computer how will it work on a tiny smartphone ?

on the health topic i don't know much about 5G but I'm curious to know how much more intense the signal have to be ? judging from wireless VR it seems that transmitting a lot of data quickly is a big problem, emitters have to be way more powerful and super directional, while I don't really mind 4G, such a huge speed "leap" (more like a rocket sent to the moon) going to 5G can't be good for health

 

I don't see a problem with health issues such as cancer, because no one was able to prove it. Maybe there could be issues with some frequencies being able to resonate in some of your organs. E.g. eyes, balls, some lower frequencies maybe in heart. But all of that would require quite substantial power to cause any problems.

 

is it real 5g ? or it is more like "5g" ?

 

This must be the first time I've seen PR represented on a US map, and, the first time I've seen HI represented without AK.
Also... I claim BS on that coverage. I don't even think all carriers combined can provide that level of coverage, let alone T-Mobile.

Resonating with them still won't cause cancer. It's non-ionizing radiation. Anyone who sincerely fears the radiation from their electronics might as well never step outside again, because even at night you are being pummeled with much more cosmic and solar radiation. The sun will do more damage to you in one day than a lifetime of carrying a phone.

 

Let's just go a step further and let them know homes can build up radon, a radioactive gas that forms from the decay of natural radioactive metals in the ground.

 

@Khronikos
How about you actually take 5 seconds to google something before you start making rash accusations:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiation_nonionizing/index.html
Despite what you think (because this isn't up for debate), there are extensive studies, and many of them too. It is widely recognized among physicists, medical doctors, and radio technicians that radio frequencies are non-ionizing. Radio frequencies go from 20KHz to 300GHz. Currently, 5G tops at 28GHz, and will soon go up to 72GHz. If even 300GHz scares you, are you afraid of the light? Because that's in the hundreds of THz. It's all part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Not even ultraviolet is ionizing, not the whole spectrum anyway. With enough energy, it can cause damage to your DNA. The sun provides roughly 32W per mm^2 of ultraviolet radiation. The sun emits hundreds of watts in the rest of the visible light spectrum, and even more in infrared. None of that is harmful to us at all. Cell phone radios, meanwhile, operate at less than 4W. Ooooh how scary! I'm surely going to get radiation sickness from that! /s
EDIT: Also worth pointing out that cell phone radios emit their 4W total, in a sphere. So per mm^2, it's pretty insignificant.

That's because given enough energy, radio waves will heat things up. That's how a microwave oven works. I suppose you think that's poisoning your food too? Because I assure you, it's not (and yes, there are studies to back that up too). The reason that limit is in place is not because of "radiation", it's because certain organs are sensitive to temperature. At 4W, your body can dissipate the heat much quicker than it can build up. A typical microwave oven (which BTW, operates at the same frequency of many consumer-grade radio devices) uses a whopping 1KW of power. It heats up your food so quick because it's literally 250x the amount of energy your phone can emit; usually even higher.
As for me bringing up the sun, the point of that was to show that the sun gives off an order of magnitude more electromagnetic radiation at HUGELY higher frequencies, and yet, it doesn't cause radiation poisoning. So how the hell is a 4W radio with a relatively low frequency supposed to do it?


So tell me physics and medicine expert of the internet: how do you feel about vaccines? Or the ludicrous idea that the Earth is a sphere?

 

It is a well known fact that people who have operated radar towers for several years nearly all get cancer.

I am willing to bet that 30 years from now, we are really going to start seing the health effects from people being constantly exposed to 4g and 5g... (aswell as cellphone and wifi to a lesser degree)

https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-A...-2-Radiofrequency-Electromagnetic-Fields-2013

 

Source?
Let's say for a moment what you said is 100% fact: that's the same kind of logic that was applied to say aspartame is carcinogenic. Of course it's going to be carcinogenic when almost your entire diet is composed of aspartame and water (as what was done in lab tests with mice). Most things in life that are typically safe are dangerous when you're facing extreme amounts of exposure. Even drinking too much water can kill you.
A lot of broadcast towers emit tens of kilowatts. In the US, radio towers are limited to 1MW. Granted, a lot of that energy is lost in heat, but it's still a tremendous amount of power put into radio waves. So if it takes 1KW to cook your meal, is it really any surprise that those towers could cause damage to you when you're practically close enough to touch the emitter? For the record - the reason people don't get cooked alive while up on those towers is because the frequency doesn't resonate with water molecules.

Anyway, since the discussion here is specifically phone signals:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html


EDIT:
I see you added a source but uh... did you not read the whole thing? Look at the last sentence:
"Although the preparation of this Monograph had been scheduled so as to include the results of the large international case-control study INTERPHONE on mobile-phone use (conducted in 2000-2004; published in 2010), it should be emphasized that the evaluations in this volume address the general question of whether RF radiation causes cancer in humans or in experimental animals: it does not specifically or exclusively consider mobile phones, but rather the type of radiation emitted by mobile phones and various other sources. Furthermore, this Monograph is focused on the potential for an increased risk of cancer among those exposed to RF radiation, but does not provide a quantitative assessment of any cancer risk, nor does it discuss or evaluate any other potential health effects of RF radiation."
In other words "this doesn't specify whether your phone will give you cancer".

 

Y'know what else will heat up brain tissue? Aluminum foil when it is wrapped around your head. I suggest you take off your hat made of it...

Also, how exactly is citing sources from a cancer prevention site shilling (note the spelling...) for tech companies? For the record, I have a phone that was worth $40 new and doesn't even have a fully working data plan. I don't give a crap about 5G or any high-speed mobile broadband, but I'm not about to get scared by myths perpetuated from the 1970s.

EDIT:
As for lead, it has only been recently discovered how harmful it (and other heavy metals) are to the brain. A lot of houses use lead paint. Ancient Rome used lead for plumbing (hence the atomic symbol of lead: Pb, for plumbum), as well as an artificial sweetener. Lead was used in fuel because of it's anti-knocking properties. At the time, there weren't a lot of better options. Of course the oil companies cared about profit, but lead didn't exactly make fuel more profitable to them, it was something customers wanted. That is, until everyone discovered it was toxic.

Why do scaremongers think they can be trusted with a complete lack of data or a fundamental understanding of the subject at hand?

 

Asking the real questions and ignoring the tin-foil trolls.
Anyone know if it's "Stand Alone" 5G?

 

Covering more than '200 million' the number that can actually access it is the tens of thousands currently at anything over standard 4G speeds. I can't even get a reliable CDMA never mind LTE signal. Just to be clear, I'm not addressing Hilbert but T-Mobiles claims.

 

What do you mean 'stand alone'. These are in addition to the existing network not a replacement.