Are usually safest distance coming from a 5G cell Structure
If you've ever wandered through a town and spotted tiny cell towers for 5G placed on poles for street lighting. https://squareblogs.net/sushisugar5/how-far-should-i-stay-from-the-5g-cell-phone-tower look like small boxes however, they're actually transmitting wireless signals from cellular providers to your phone.
https://blogfreely.net/troutpolish2/what-is-the-safest-distance-from-your-5g-cell-system are replacing larger built cell towers. Although they're not as visible, they still can cause problems for people.
It is the of the FCC's Radiation Exposure Thresholds
The FCC's Radiation Exposure Thresholds define the safe distance that an individual can be exposed to electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices. The exposure limits are based on scientific data that show that RF energy could be harmful to human health.
The absorption rate specific (SAR) is a measure of the amount of radiofrequency energy that is taken up by tissues. It's typically 1.6 Watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of tissue.
Since 5g is able to transmit at higher frequencies this could be able to cause greater energy intensity on the skin and other exposed body areas. This could lead to a wide range of potential harms, including exacerbated development of skin diseases such as dermatitis and cataracts, and skin cancer.
Due to the potential for severe effects of 5g radiation, PSU has chosen to create a general limits on power density, which is 4mW/cm2 based on the average on 1cm2, and not exceeding 30 minutes for the entire 5G spectrum at 3000 GHz. This localized limit is consistent with the maximum spatial-average SAR of 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 mobile phone, you probably know that the safest location from the tower should be at least 400 meters away. This is because the power of transmission from a cell tower increases dramatically the further away the tower is.
While it sounds like a good idea, the reality is that people who live close to towers might be more vulnerable to health problems. For instance, a 2014 study in India found that residents who lived within 50m of cell towers had much more health problems than those who were far from antennas.
https://creative-penguin-wb1wz1.mystrikingly.com/blog/very-best-safest-distance-from-a-5g-cell-tower found that people who moved into areas farther away from cell towers experienced their symptoms return to normal within a few days. Another study has shown that exposure to high frequencies of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can lead to cancer, brain tumors and other health issues.
This is due to the fact that RF radiation, used in wireless communications, may be absorbed by the body's outer layer of skin. This is important to understand since the skin serves as a protective barrier against injuries caused by mechanical forces, infections caused by pathogenic microorganisms and entry of toxic substances. It is also the largest organ of the human body. It is accountable 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 aren't supported by scientific evidence. This includes the false assumption that short-term exposures to RF radiation are safe because of the minimal radiation penetration in the human body (i.e. thermal heating of tissue).
The assumption is also ignoring the more extensive penetration of ELF elements of modulated radio signals, as well as the consequences of short bursts of heat from pulsed RF waves. These theories are not compatible with the current understanding of biological consequences of RF radiation. As such they shouldn't be relied upon for health-protection exposure standards.
<img width="407" src="http://cdn.mobilesyrup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cell-tower-new.jpg">
Additionally there is the fact that both ICNIRP and FCC restrict their radiation limits for local peak SARs, based on the peak frequency of absorption (psSAR) which is an inadequate dosimetric tool to determine the degree of radiation exposure. Particularly the psSAR tool is not accurate for frequencies above 6 GHz. Additionally, psSAR hasn't been tested for RF radiation exposed to other environmental agents , such as sunlight. Interactions of RF radiation with other agents in the environment could result in antagonistic or synergistic impacts. This would result in an increased risk of negative health effects. For instance, exposure to RF radiation with sunlight may increase the risk of skin cancer and exacerbate other skin conditions like acne.