5G: The Trouble With the New Phone Network

[@muzvid]

"I think everyone would be better off if the worries from scientists were taken more seriously in the design stage and not grumpingly acknowledged half through a global roll-out." Amen to that.

[@Danielle-zq7kb]

Companies don’t like naysayers.

[@TempoTrack]

Maybe the major 'companies' of the world need to burn

[@happyguy8725]

Some people refuse anything a scientist says, Earth is flat, the moon and sun are just lights on the dome, they say this all well watching hollow earth theory videos on a computer we have through development of science. People are DUMB

[@lordgarion514]

Thing is, if we didn't do things that were bad for us, we'd literally be living in the preindustrial revolution. And while our modern stuff kills a LOT of people percentage wise, it also saves a LOT of lives. Considering that the death rate for those 5 years old and you get was 30% in the Early 1800's(and that's just from the diseases we have vaccines for). Modern tech is an overall benefit. For now anyway. Won't be long before it's not with how global warming is going.

[@justaskin8523]

@@Danielle-zq7kb Nor do political parties. Or governments. But sometimes, having a cautious type on the team (and listening to them) can avoid a lot of redo. And tragedy.

[@barrychickini9074]

That quote. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”

[@fidelcatsro6948]

especially for sportbikes above 100hp....

[@jaywulf]

But Moni!!!

[@2bfrank657]

Unfortunately, the more popular one seems to be "better to plead for forgiveness than ask for permission".

[@fidelcatsro6948]

@@auturgicflosculator2183 yeah we need all the ponies we can get traversing through waves of water and wind resistance!

[@bannerman100]

I love Sabine, she has given me my biggest belly laugh this year ! 3:00 "There's a reason they haven't been previously used for telecommunication, and it's not because millimetre waves are also used as goodbyes for in-laws."

[@mikaelbiilmann6826]

The sneaky little wave… 😂

[@justaskin8523]

I thought that wave was only used on television. And now it turns out that it's a real thing?

[@lol56785]

dry humour

[@llamallama1509]

I accidentally watched this at 360p and didn't notice till after it had finished. You don't need extreme high definition on a small screen.

[@Sebastien_5577]

I look all videos at 360p too, it's really suffisant. I look only video about on "age of empire" at 480p.

[@AvoidsPikes-]

360p? Uh....no.

[@samuelbucher5189]

Speak for your self. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 720p.

[@joegranata7936]

Most of things we are nowadays unable to give up I would have called pretty unnecessary 10 years ago. It's indeed needed a big change of perspective where finally we decide what we absolutely need.

[@hoodio]

5g isn't necessary for phones, i get 270mbps down, 40 up and 30ms at home on 4g, i have no idea how you'd need more

[@nickglazzard2385]

I think the difference between -20dBW and -55dBW is nearer 3 orders of magnitude than 30, as dB is 10 log10(x) where power ratios are concerned. Excellent video as always, though.

[@Volodimar]

@StringerNews1 it is difference between 1000 more and 10000000000000000000000000000 more.

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

@StringerNews1 No it isn't. Power scales quadratically with field strength (P=1/2*Ê^2/Z), so a factor of 1000 regarding power means a factor of about 30 regarding field strength

[@Paxmax]

I'm not as clever... need to toy around to understand; -20dBW = 10'000 microWatt . . -55dBW = 3.16 microWatt . So -20 is 3000 times larger than -55 . . so yes, just above 3 order of magnitude.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for pointing out and sorry about that!

[@pigsick2000lbs1]

A difference of 35dB is literally 3 and a half orders of magnitude.

[@sadas8154]

Telecom companies don't want to provide the speed that 4G gives, instead they want to sell something new to the people using the speed card.

[@joewwilliams]

Shocking that a trade group disputes science that is inconvenient to the interests they represent. Just as shocking: US govt calls it "contentious" while choosing a side. And the side they chose (again, so shocked) is that of the business interest.

[@JayVal90]

If scientists paid more taxes, they’d take the other side

[@paulcooper8818]

@@JayVal90 If scientists paid more lobbyists, they’d take the other side

[@HeavenlyKnight96]

“It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair”

[@JayVal90]

@@paulcooper8818 I wasn’t insulting scientists here 💀

[@madattaktube]

The US gov chose corporate interest over the good of everyone? I'm socked, SHOCKED I say!

[@rebeccaschade3987]

Whenever science comes into conflict with money, money wins. It's how it always works.

[@TheMightyShell]

How it always works in capitalism

[@faza553]

Political power SCIENCE fueled by data obtained from science methodology?

[@barryon8706]

@@TheMightyShell Lysenkoism

[@wokelion1573]

Thank the euros and their murderous greeeeed.😠

[@davorgolik7873]

unfortunately 😩

[@laaradee]

Your videos/ attitude gives me hope - that sanity and ‘clear ‘ thinking still exists! 🙏

[@greggstrasser5791]

Einstein… ya, THAT guy. Nobody peer reviewed him.

[@hikingpete]

I'm definitely in favour of hard limits on leakage around scientifically important frequencies. These frequencies are discrete and well defined. The impact on commercial utilization is tolerable, and the loss of the scientific utilization is not. I'd say this one is pretty clear cut, even if it means a trip back to the drawing board. I like the apparent European approach - just hold off on auctioning those bands for now.

[@nova_supreme8390]

Considering that those scientific measurements are essentially a public utility that is used to enhance safety of the public so commercial use should come secondary in consideration anyways.

[@yangpachankis]

How about antimatter in the EM frequencies? I think the current frequency schemes have some limitations. Some noises are important.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@yangpachankis "Antimatter in the EM frequencies"? Does that translate into anything real or at least understandable?

[@Pastor_virtual_Robson]

I'm definitely NOT in favour of hard limits on leakage around scientifically important frequencies

[@yangpachankis]

@@KaiHenningsen if you do astronomical observations, you will see the data noises. And those noises in the microwave background contain some portions of antimatter. Saw another comment about the designs for amplitude for transmission data integrity. Those are the antimatter contribution in the EM spectrum they tried to overcome. Stephen Hawking talked about it in one of his lectures introducing Roger Penrose. I saw it recently… only that the Big Bang theory made his insights hidden from the scientific consensus.

[@LeonCouch]

Very clear and well-paced presentation with good definitions of acronymns and engineering concepts, with actual numbers, as well as summary of the politics around the topics. Thanks.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqSokqyniZyWr7c Sabine fails to address the point that 5G has NO negative consequence on weather forecasting, because 5G is used ONLY in cities of high population density because it has NO USE in sparsely populated places. 5G is not used over open ocean, where meterologists takes measurements to predict hurricanes. Hurricanes form over open ocean, not over land. McToon makes these points in the video linked in this comment.

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the 5G range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors 5G content. All the accepted research on the safety of 5G advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry. Panic.

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@TLguitar]

Informative and well made video! Just one error I noticed at 15:55: you referred to the FCC's 35dBW-higher limit compared to the WMO's as "more than 30 orders of magnitude above", but every 10 decibels are a power of ten, not every 1 decibel (≈ *1.2589). Thus it should have been "more than _3 orders of magnitude_ above".

[@beeble2003]

I was about to comment exactly the same thing. I'm hoping she just mis-spoke. Any scientifically literate person should immediately see that a power increase of 30 orders of magnitude couldn't possibly be correct. That's roughly equivalent to the World Metereological Organization saying "We'd like you to limit this to the power of a single LED, please" and the USA saying "Eh, we'll limit it to 250 Suns. That'll be OK." (By the way, I'm not suggesting that Sabine isn't scientifically literate. Just that it's a really bad mistake for a scientifically literate person to make.)

[@TLguitar]

@@beeble2003 Yeah, because this is pretty basic I wonder if it has something to do with a language mistake between German and English. Of course one might define an order of magnitude using a non-base-10 power, but this is definitely not the case with the decibel scale, even if each base-10 magnitude is "divided" to its 10th root.

[@aartadventure]

I was about to comment the same. Great video otherwise.

[@trent_carter]

This mistake comforts me as it means Sabine doesn’t know everything, which I was starting to become convinced she did.

[@James_Knott]

I noticed that too.

[@MykePagan]

One quibble: when Sabine talks about the future capabilities of 6G she mentions the enablement of various use cases with “instantaneous access.” This is not quite true. 6G provides greater bandwidth (as 5G did, and 4G before that), but *latency* is not as dramatically imoroved. Many of those science fiction applications also demand very low latency in addition to large bandwidth. Getting lower latencies is possible, but it can be a more costly engineering problem to address.

[@McSlobo]

4G and 5G offered a huge improvement on latency. To make latency much shorter than sub 10ms we have to start bringing services nearer to consumers, perhaps away from those huge server facilities, which will still be used for higher latency applications and data storage. But a round trip from, let's say Helsinki to Berlin is a minimum of 11ms and the fiber optics don't run straight. The latency wirelessly from phone to that fiber is brought close to a minimum already, as well as how many bits can be squeezed in bandwidth unit.

[@PazLeBon]

we wil lal lbe too broke to afford internet soon anyway haha

[@maryodonnell5760]

but she's only repeating what Tom Wheeler promised as chairman of the FCC and concerning 5g - he said a lot of things that didn't add up but sold it to whoever bought it, the majority of the population didn't vote this thing in but just got seduced into 'entertainment' and lifestyle

[@UnderscoreZeroLP]

Sure, but any online video game player will tell you that

[@MykePagan]

@@UnderscoreZeroLP true, but I spent two days last week dealing with people for whom 15 microseconds latency is completely unacceptable. And who arewilling to pay tens of millions of dollars to maintain such performance. Gaming is just the icing on a massive cake

[@TyMoore95503]

You know, a really, really simple solution here is just "switch" out that one 5G channel directly above the 24 GHz water vapor channel: very little degradation of databandwidth in the network and less interference... Thank you Sabine for another fascinating production! 👍

[@AvoidsPikes-]

Hopefully it's that simple and not something like California having a water shortage crisis while positioned on the coast of the largest ocean in the world 🌊

[@Fs3i]

@StringerNews1 we understand that, thanks. 5G channels, however, are a frequency range.

[@TyMoore95503]

A narrow band switchout could be implemented with a simple software patch...a compromise that most including the 5G advocates and the companies that already have billions invested could live with.

[@yangpachankis]

@@AvoidsPikes- the same can be said about UK considering recycling water sewage. But sea water processing for city supplies can be difficult?

[@t.c.bramblett617]

@@AvoidsPikes- Desalination is still not a cheap or easy process.

[@recordtronic]

I love your videos. Very informative, and I like the deadpan manner in which you drop a joke or a dunk.

[@abbasjariani7154]

High quality and concise, as usual.

[@thattimestampguy]

Wave Channels have limits 2:21 Limits exist 3:56 Millimeter Waves 4:30 1/107 studies was well designed in figuring out 5G affect or no affect on human skin 5:02 Research weaknesses - small sample size - Poor control of environmental parameters 6:17 Data and Word 6:53 Water Vapor in the atmosphere 💧 🛰 7:40 23.80GHZ - the frequency satellites use to look for water 7:47 The Issue: The 5G Band causes Leakage and Noise 🕳💥 8:19 ☀️🌧⛈🌦🌈💧💨Weather Forecasts have improved since 1980, 80% -> 98% accuracy. Due to better computers and satellites 📡 🛰 9:20 Water Vapor sensitivity Noise in highly populated cities interfere 10:42 🌀Hurricane tracking could weaken 11:17 THATS ABSURD, 5G doesn’t do that. 13:01 Research found…. 14:23 Augmented Reality 6G, instant availability 14:45 Incredibly Fast 15:45 -20dBW 16:05 Scientists get to a new discovery 1st, people catch up, causes interference 16:35 Work harder in Design [Research and Development] to fix problems, so Rollout of new tech can go smoothly.

[@ArneBab]

Thank you!

[@hikerJohn]

This should be pinned to the top.

[@dailynotes2845]

The lord has presented; and we have accepted

[@DocBree13]

Nicely done - thanks!

[@Eagleizer]

11:46 It's Trump's fault... :p

[@YellowCable]

4g and similar stuff is just fine, which is a problem for a whole industry that is predicated on producing and selling new technology with faster and faster transfer rates. At some point (probably already) they will have to arbitrarily change the technology with little to no consumer benefit

[@9852323]

Definitely already. It’s been happening with smartphones for the past 5 years atleast. Nobody with a brain is buying a new phone every 2/3 years like they used to because the innovation and big upgrades in speed and processing power are minimal at best.

[@LaughterOnWater]

At 3:08... 6:38... Love the meta millimeter wave wave... 🤣 Once again, thanks for simplifying a complex subject. SH, you are amazing!

[@sjappelodorus]

Accurate weather prediction is increasingly important for predicting both energy consumption and production. Getting this wrong causes imbalance on the grid, which costs money and in extreme cases causes blackouts. It would seem only fair to me if telecom companies were made to pay for this externality.

[@dr.OgataSerizawa]

Fat chance, my friend!

[@SpectatorAlius]

It is not that easy to blame telecom companies for the externality -- when scientists put their satellites out there, the should have added filters to block anything outside of the narrow range they want -- just as phone manufacturers should have followed stricter limits of what they are allowed to transmit out of the passband.

[@CycleWerkz]

​@@SpectatorAlius Uh, the FCC governs all radio transmitters including both systems. All radio systems are thoroughly analyzed and are reviewed by several independent groups of RF engineers SMEs, most of which are PhDs. The handsets transmit about 12dB less power than than the downlink. And handsets have horrible antennas. There has to be at least 20dB less radiated power, and much, much less energy. All BTS (cell site) equipment is the highest quality available. All system performance is continuously monitored, measured and analyzed. All carriers use the latest techniques to ensure all radio transmissions are well within specifications. Don't worry so much. We'll get it sorted.

[@CycleWerkz]

So wind generations systems are HUGE. They are in areas void of other development because that's where the wind blows. Wind blows because giant air masses at high pressure seek pressure equalization by moving to low pressure air masses. Of course there are many other factors but the measurements needed are not super high tech. These systems are giant and changes occur slowly. Predictions in these areas are extremely precise, better than 95%, 1 full day ahead and about 80% accurate 2 full days ahead. These air masses are giant and changes occur slowly. Predictions in these area are outstanding. Rain measurements are not useful for this. And, network carriers would not deploy 2.5GHz systems in these areas due to wave propagation fade, and no people. 5G is a format not a frequency band. 5G works great on 600, 700, 800 MHz, or anywhere else you'd like. PV is another story. Energy production varies substantially as visible moisture shades the cells. However we only need dew point and temp aloft to predict. Precision is not as good but decent. It's typically correct but can miss unexpectedly. Not even counting the previous 2.5 GHz auction, the FCC collected $416M. For that price, in fairness, shouldn't they ensure proper design? Shouldn't they be held accountable? Well, they are not. Telecom companies paid, and paid, and paid. When that was done, they paid again.

[@le13579]

A problem with weather-based power generation.

[@thecarpenter645]

Love your videos. The way you explain things is quite clear and understandable. Just a small trivial thing is we don’t have squirrels 🐿 in New Zealand we have a few kiwi birds they’ll just have to watch that instead.

[@flagmichael]

As Neman Syed pointed out above, "By the time you see them, it's already too late..." Dun dun DUN!

[@2bfrank657]

... And no, we don't want any squirrels either in case anyone was wondering. We already have too many exotic species making a mess of our environment.

[@olic7266]

@Mysterious_old_geek what does the acronym stand for?

[@samuelmullins271]

@@2bfrank657 Was it New Zealand where the baboon riots were criminally organized? Are you aware of which colonial additives resulted in plant and animal extinctions? Rumor is that some endangered lifeforms were unique to New Zealand. Natural causes are not the accusable bastards. Merely foreigners' only were probably the only essential conspirators causing your environmental muck-ups. Not saying all city-slickers share your naivete. But it does look like Naturalist farmers of scientific compatibility are NOT so typically shallow. What I am saying is the first New Zealand inhabitants did not cause such calamities prior to ARROGANT international invaders.

[@sexywarriorwomen]

You don’t get to watch youtube from America then? Plenty of those videos there.

[@markoposavec9240]

That really sucks... weather forecasts are super important for so much, and they are so accurate it's incredible, when you understand how difficult a problem it really is. I use detailed weather forecasts for windsurfing and other things I do. I sure hope the issue is going to be resolved because returning to significantly worse forecasts is going to be a real pain.

[@hikerJohn]

Talk about butterfly effect . . . Computers create weather forecasts and if you put in that much bad data what will happen to the forecast models?

[@JatinSanghvi1]

But with 6G enabled Metaverse, you would anyway be surfing in virtual reality in weather of your choice ;)

[@hikerJohn]

@@JatinSanghvi1 Well . . .we cant miss out on that experience can we.

[@cybervigilante]

It will also cut food supply when there is already a shortage. Farmers depend on the weather more than anyone. However, 6G, which is coming, is the real problem. It requires much closer cell towers and is inimical to animals, like us.

[@hikerJohn]

@@kensho123456 Or use the hurricane lamp test LOL

[@radwimp7484]

I had no idea the effect 5G might have on weather forecasting... Seems like a massive oversight to something extremely critical

[@patrikpass2962]

The imagine what it can do to the body.

[@James_Knott]

A couple of points, 5G is used on several bands, not just mmWave. In fact it's often used on the exact same bands as 4G, 3G, 2G and 1G. It's just expanded to include mmWaves. That said, mmWave is a huge spread, with only part of it close to the frequencies used by vapour detection. In fact, there a 4 mmWave bands allocated for 5G and only one of them is near it. The other 3 are further up the spectrum. So, it's just a small piece of the mmWave spectrum that's the problem, not 5G in general. Incidentally, there is another area where 5G is getting unwarranted blame. That's with the with the n77/n78 band, which starts at 3.3 GHz. This is close to the frequency used by radio altimeters, as used on aircraft. There was a lot of noise from the aviation community about this. However, it turns out no one bothered to do any testing. They just assumed. Turns out it's a problem with certain older altimeter models that had inadequate filters. Adding a filter fixes that problem. Also, aviation regulators have often ordered equipment upgrades, as technology advanced. Certainly that vapour detection must be considered, with spectrum allocated and equipment designed appropriately to avoid the problem. One method that's often used is called a notch filter, where a filter is used to block specific frequencies. This combined with the usual band pass filters would likely remove the problem.

[@OscarHernandez-xx2je]

Is not just some old RAs, is most RAs in service. We are hard at work certifying the new transceivers which reject the near 5G frequencies at 3.7 to 3.85 GHz.

[@Rokin365]

If you listened carefully, your comment does not contradict the video. Did you? And did you suggest to the people at CTIA not to use that special band? Could be worth it.

[@James_Knott]

@@Rokin365 I'm not sure what your question is. First off, as I mentioned, is that many assume 5G means only mmWaves, which is not the case. However, any other band has nothing to do with the issue of measuring moisture. This video is somewhat vague in a lot of ways, so it's hard to pin down what she's saying. Regardless, this is a technical issue with potential interference that has to be considered. For example, how much power is actually transmitted? Does it produce frequencies that actually interfere? Is it possible to reduce the interference? Regardless, if there is significant interference from mmWave 5G, then it might be best to not use frequencies so close to what is used for moisture detection. This isn't the first time such has happened. For example UHF TV channel 52 (IIRC) was not used in North America, so as not to interfere with radio astronomy. Balancing radio spectrum users is an ongoing challenge that has both technical and regulatory solutions. I mentioned the aircraft altimeters, where the fix is to just put a filter ahead of the affected devices. As for CTIA, I'd always be wary of what an industry spokesman says, as they are not unbiased. The moisture issue will take proper study before those bands come into common use. Also, given the short range of those frequencies, they might be used mainly indoors, in stadiums, air ports, etc., in which case the problem might not exist.

[@effedrien]

Indeed the highest band around 90 GHz is intended for large crowds with a direct line of sight. It is ideal for temporarily locations like concerts, large crowds can be served at once with relatively little hardware, without overloading the fixed antenna network. And the lowest band is ideal for iot applications, 5G is a very broad specification both for industrial applications and consumer telecommunications. From technical point of view it is a very well thought specification and a major milestone, but for most people it's just 'faster'.

[@LabyrinthMike]

To be honest, I thought 4G was fast enough.

[@rajeev_kumar]

4G is sufficiently fast for most of my work.

[@Volodimar]

If it ever present, I personally struggle to catch good reception even in urban environment. They better to improve existing network rather than implementing new one 😠

[@arctic_haze]

I remember taking a part in a meeting around 1991 where an engineer bragged the university has now a 19200 baud rate connection to the Internet and it will be enough for years to come. As I heard him, I was sure he was talking nonsense. It turned out, I was right.

[@IanSlothieRolfe]

The problem with 4G is that the data rate you see varies wildly with how much it is being used locally. So the rates you see advertised are maximums. I rely on 4G and much of the time it is OK for normal web usage - then it will grind to a halt if there's a lot of local usage, a national event that people are watching on their mobile devices, or the moon is in the wrong phase (i.e. for unknown reasons).

[@ZotyLisu]

4G is not fast enough, try working a job where you download tens of GBs everyday and live in a place without fiber

[@markusbroyles1884]

Yea, the grumpy thing and experimenting on us all instead of doing the basic testing beforhand is extremely troubling. Great essay Sabine THANKS !!

[@Michael-qy1jz]

Yep, it was testified in congress that Zero tests have been done to look.at health effects!! Invest in Cancer Centers. They are Sneaking these 5G towers all around Sarasota/Bradenton every night hoping people don't notice. Like a big prison being built around us

[@Cobbido]

Reminds you of something else doesn't it

[@JayVal90]

@@Cobbido We’re allowed to talk about it on YT now 😂

[@piscialassini]

@@Cobbido kind of...

[@alihenderson5910]

I'm sure if we just follow "the science", everything will be fine.

[@spacematter431]

10:03 Sabine part of the reason why like watching your videos -aside from the levels of sanity- is because of the quality of burns you distribute

[@ixiwildflowerixi]

Once we reach 10G, every person on the planet will need to have a radio tower implanted in their spine.

[@phangkuanhoong7967]

that's...literally the premise of the novel i'm writing. lol.

[@Edruezzi]

4G was enough to produce global upheaval by rendering information gatekeepers irrelevant. Anybody could have his or her dumb conspiracy theory or misinformation go viral and the fools and gullible morons would not realize it was nonsense, demonstrating decisively the value of education. 10 G will be utilized from caves and a Mad Max new stone age.

[@aceredstone119]

Cyberpunk

[@SpectatorAlius]

That sounds like a good idea for a modern remake of "The President's Analyst"!

[@DivineLightPaladin]

@@phangkuanhoong7967 when does it come out, I'm excited to read it

[@CycleWerkz]

5G is a transmission format, not a frequency band. It can be used on any band. There is nationwide 5G coverage on the 600MHz band

[@porcorosso4330]

It is designed to work with the higher frequencies. The performance of 5g at the lower frequencies are not as good.

[@CycleWerkz]

@@porcorosso4330 It depends on which performance characteristics you value at the moment. My point is that all the issues discussed in this video are a function of the 2.5GHz band, not the 5G format. All the formats were designed to work in all the available bands. Higher bands are able to transfer higher data rates, and the 5G format is able to take full advantage of that. Conversely, higher bands radio propagation performance is much worse by nearly every measure.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@porcorosso4330 Its definitions and regulations include higher frequencies. That doesn't mean anybody will burst mm waves into your toilette.

[@James_Knott]

@@porcorosso4330 5G has about a 25% performance improvement over 4G in the same spectrum.

[@henry770]

Okay, subscribing to this channel now. It’s too much fun.

[@MrEddy-bm3eo]

Dear Sabine, clouds are not made of water vapor, but of water (small water droplets), which is why we can see them with our own eyes. Thank you for this video! Roughly a year, I realized that weather forecasts are getting noticeably worse, especially in regards to rain forecasts.

[@3dguy839]

Just like Fat David E. He's made of of tiny Fat cells not Fat Mary and Fat Dave

[@lillihawell2968]

Correct, but (in this video) she does not claim that clouds are made of water vapor. She does mention the amount of water vapor in clouds as compared to in the lower atmosphere, but of course a cloud can also have water vapor dissolved in the air between droplets.

[@jonasdaverio9369]

@@lillihawell2968 I have no idea how this work, but I would guess satellites measure both water and water vapor. Or do they just see water vapor?

[@lillihawell2968]

@@jonasdaverio9369 Personally I also have little idea how it works; as far as I know, satellites don't directly measure either of those; instead, they measure the intensity of certain EM wavelengths, and different intensities correspond to different temperatures, and different temperatures correspond to different altitudes since the atmosphere varies in temperature as you go up or down. Then there's one range of wavelengths for measuring clouds and such, and another range for measuring water vapor specifically; the amount of water vapor etc. can then be inferred based on the measured intensities (e.g. if the intensity reading indicates a high altitude, that means there's probably a lot of water vapor, because the light is being reflected back from a high altitude, meaning there's probably a lot of water vapor piled up in the area) I assume the two wavelengths react with a measurable difference to the presence of water droplets, so they can probably make some kind of calculation to separately determine how much water is in droplets vs. vapor, but really meteorology is way beyond me and I have no idea how they figure these things out with any level of confidence It's also possible Sabine did mean the water in cloud droplets (rather than water vapor, as she said), but I am nitpicky so I assume she meant what she said

[@benahaus]

Hmmm, after condensation, yes, but before condensation it's evapotranspirational "vapor".

[@justforplaylists]

Isn't the difference between -55dBW and -20dBW 3.5 orders of magnitude, not 30 orders of magnitude?

[@kenthendl]

i think it's something like 2^25

[@aionceres7086]

The statement at 15:57 is mathematically not correct. The difference between -20dBW and -55dBW is NOT 30 orders of magnitude, which would be 10^(30). This solution seems reasonable, but remember that dB is a pseudo-unit which is the logarithm of the difference MULTIPLIED by TEN (if you repect that there are just 3 orders of magnitude in between). My_dB_value = 10dB*log(P_out/P_in). With P_in = 1mW, which is what you do when using dBW instead of dB, you can calculate P_out. P_out is ~3,16*10(-6) W fpr -55dBW and ~1*10(-2) W for -20 dBW. If we divide these two values we get ~3164, which is around three orders of magnitude and not 30.

[@marcmckenzie5110]

In 2013 we discovered I had a “terminal” case of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. My baseline PET scan, prior to treatment, showed a dense inguinal tumor the exact size and orientation of the antenna in my iPhone (per engineering teardown). I had always kepy my phone in my pants pocket juxtaposed to where we found the tumor. No one in the medical community wanted to report this black-and-white finding to state or federal regulatory agencies. The reason, they stated, was that the telecom industrial complex was too powerful and wealthy - nothing would come of it, other than risk to my doctors. I was fighting for life for several years, so we had no appetite to pursue the matter. Big money doesn’t care about the everyday person, and their corruption has now gripped governments. We beat cancer, though sequelae has left me severely handicapped, home bound, and alone. You can bet that I rarely put a cellphone near my body, and then only briefly.

[@julieann4762]

Wow, just saying I'm sorry to hear this. That sounds sad to hear you say handicapped, home bound and alone. Besides Sabine's channel, I listen to Jeffrey Mishlove's shows quite a bit, you might enjoy it. Totally different vibe. Thank you for the cautionary cell phone story.

[@fistpunder]

16:35 Hits the proverbial nail on the head about how things are designed and rolled out. Design technology with the real world in mind.

[@MartinSchuchert]

Thanks!

[@fugslayernominee1397]

Sabine, you do really great work here, you make videos on topics that most science communicator KZbinrs don't, really appreciate your work, it goes a long way into educating the masses on different topics. Keep up the good work, thanks!

[@tensor131]

do you really think the masses watch these videos? That's the problem; that's what we should talk about today .....

[@mark7831]

She's completely wrong checkout conspiracy toonz channel he destroys her nonsense 🙄

[@mark7831]

@@kensho123456 that's cause you like misinformation or conspiracy

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqSokqyniZyWr7c Sabine fails to address the point that 5G has NO negative consequence on weather forecasting, because 5G is used ONLY in cities of high population density because it has NO USE in sparsely populated places. 5G is not used over open ocean, where meterologists takes measurements to predict hurricanes. Hurricanes form over open ocean, not over land. McToon makes these points in the video linked in this comment.

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@MarkHunterSolo]

Very informative and very relevant Sabine - thanks!

[@mitchumsport]

I like the dBm limitations idea, but why is there so much opposition? Surely there is some kind of filter or choke which can be integrated into those antennas so they do not give so much leakage.

[@odysseus9672]

"30 orders of magnitude." Not quite, Sabine. A decibel is 1/10th of a Bel, and Bels count orders of magnitude. So, 30 dB is about a factor of a thousand. Still really bad, but not 30 orders of magnitude bad.

[@TheAntibozo]

You seem to think "order of magnitude" is necessarily base ten.

[@josiah42]

3.5 orders of magnitude on a log ten scale. I had to look it up because sometimes people use order of magnitude to refer to log 2 scales which might be closer to the truth.

[@justforplaylists]

@@TheAntibozo It would be 12 orders of magnitude if it was factors of 2. And that's only really used for computer science stuff, not physics.

[@jamesnelson2844]

Language is an art and is communication she was expressing that something is excessive and odysseus9672 communicates this in agreeing Still really bad. We often look at language as scientific and exact like our brains when we follow the scientific method but we must consider the intent and point of the communicator even if its not correct her point was expressed and communicated just like my point.

[@RupertReynolds1962]

@StringerNews1 If not stated otherwise, you can assume a factor of 10. But that's convention, because the default base in general use is base 10.

[@mheermance]

Harmonics are a well known problem in transmitter design, and the higher the power output the higher the harmonic amplitudes. Designers use low pass filters to reduce harmonic amplitudes, but that only attenuates them as a source of interference. In addition the more data you transmit on a channel the broader the sidebands become. So I'm inclined to agree with the leakage concerns. The 5G industry should be well aware of these concerns since this stuff is taught to any EE major in their communication systems course.

[@rwesenberg]

Also amateur radio licencies

[@mheermance]

@@rwesenberg true. Hams are well aware of these problems and work to eliminate them from their homemade equipment.

[@hugegamer5988]

Resonant frequency is important across all science and engineering. For example, the same math (or close enough) is used to determine if your car will rattle apart just driving normally, or in simulating molecular interactions. A flywheel and inductor are governed by exactly the same second order differential equations and are both used to smooth out vibrations identically in mechanical and electrical systems.

[@mheermance]

@StringerNews1 I'm guessing that it is harmonics or sideband interference. I did a Google search trying to find more details on the frequencies and proposed mechanism, but the links I found didn't have any details.

[@engineerinnewyork]

@StringerNews1 Telecom engineer here, and I agree 100% with all your comments so far. Both the vídeo and most of the comments here are nothing but uninformed drivel. I am afraid that what this lady calls gobbledygook is the part of science without which nothing makes sense. One of these days, we may watch a video on neurosurgery without the gobbledygook, and we will all be qualified to clip our own aneurisms using Home Depot tools.

[@Sadowsky46]

Reading the title I was ready to call BS, but you actually know what you are talking about! Well presented and explained facts, very interesting 👍

[@AfroGaz71]

Go to "conspiracy toonz". He shows multiple errors in her video.

[@colinjames2469]

@@AfroGaz71 thanks... I definitely will not go there.

[@antoniomonteiro1203]

When you mention 30 orders of magnitude I believe you meant 3 (10^3). That is 30dB in power.

[@samhianblackmoon]

Yet another excellent video, love your channel Sabine 👊🏽❤️

[@Ravenelvenlady]

Thanks for this informative video, and for your dry sense of humor.😄👍💖

[@ggoede1]

I freaking love the channel! You lay down the information in a way that the rest of us can "pick up". Dr. Kreider and Dr. Shibata. Super smart people and if you, the student, was willing to take the time, they would go an extra mile. Or two. Instructors are from Purdue.

[@shoppingrb9544]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the 5G range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors 5G content. All the accepted research on the safety of 5G advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry. Panic.

[@shoppingrb9544]

Why do you think it's safe if KZbin just delete every comment about it?

[@shoppingrb9544]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the VG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors VG content. All the accepted research on the safety of VG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGER MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@jamesstevens2362]

Two thoughts I have about the safety aspects of 5G: 1. ANY electromagnetic radiation, even in the kHz range will produce dangerous non-ionising radiation (i.e. it will heat you up) if the transmission power is high enough. 2. If low power (milliwatt) microwave transmitters such as 5G phone antennas were harmful because of the frequency of EM radiation, then it would be a really bad idea to be near a light bulb that’s switched on. Those things are emitting EM radiation across the terahertz range!

[@JimBob1937]

Edit: He fixed it. It originally stated kHz range was ionizing.

[@jamesstevens2362]

@@JimBob1937 thanks, I’ve corrected my post. My mistake about the ionising radiation. EM waves below x-ray frequency are non-ionising. With regards to power vs energy, I’m referring to transmission power in watts. E.g. a 5G phone that transmits in milliwatts isn’t the same as a microwave oven’s magnetron that transmits at around 600W. I’m not making reference to any measure of energy (in joules).

[@JimBob1937]

@@jamesstevens2362 , no problem. Yeah, I was referring to energy since ionization requires a specific amount of energy (which technically varies based on the atom in question). Then energy is related to frequency by plank's constant, higher frequency is higher energy. Hence, your statement of ionization, frequency, and power made me wonder if you were conflating them at the time.

[@SpectatorAlius]

It *is* a bad idea to sit near a light bulb -- if you stare at it without blinking and let the mosquitos bite!

[@michaelclift6849]

I've thought that too, ask someone "If I radiated 500THz at 1000's of watts a few meters in front of you, and you could feel it warming up your face, would that concern you?" If they say yes, they'd better stay away from camp fires.

[@astralighthouse5742]

Subscribed. Love your videos. You are a Seeker of knowledge, well as they called it, Wisdom. Well I hate the flaws in physics too and the society doesn't admit new ideas.

[@mina_en_suiza]

Here in Switzerland, 5G has already on use in almost the whole country. Is there already any data on effects on weather forecasts?

[@peterholzer4481]

Does Switzerland already use the higher frequency range? AFAIK most countries have only assigned frequencies in the lower range to 5G yet. Specifically, I seem to recall that Switzerland turned off 3G some time time ago and reused those frequencies for 5G.

[@mina_en_suiza]

@D R In fact, I noticed this: Here in the Zurich, a lot of times, predicted rain never came, but this is anecdotal evidence and may have been just coincidental in the very small area, I just happened to be in on these days. On a larger scale, there are surely statistics about the accuracy of forecasts. J. Kachelmann follows me on Twitter, so I might send him a question.

[@dabronx340]

Love to listen to you’re short lectures Sabine. Now I pretend I know something for one more week😂

[@veganconservative1109]

I love it when knowledgeable people get passively sarcastic. kudos.

[@thx1137]

Scientists: We can do this cool stuff with new technology. But it needs to be properly implemented so it is safe and doesn't impact others. Companies: Awesome! But we don't "trust" scientists. So, we'll use the science you guys developed (hmmm). But ignore the issues until it costs 10 times more to fix it. Later, the companys bill the government and/or consumer to fix the issues that they were already warned about so they get to make money on it twice. Or if they can't make more money, then they fob it off for as long as possible. EG: 5G is no longer a problem because we are all moving to 6G! Then 6G is no longer a problem because we are all moving to 7G! Guns and money make the world go around. A problem almost everywhere but more so in some countries...

[@marcmckenzie5110]

Sadly very true, as a retired engineer and scientist.

[@Fetherko]

The telecoms are externalizing the costs of the implementation and forcing the public to pay the costs.

[@ashkebora7262]

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. That is the dream of capitalism, and the American Dream is simply a bottle for US corporations to suckle on. Keep that carrot on the stick looking mighty fine, and grind grind grind away those profits!! Never mind the losses will be 10x: _You're_ not paying for them, so who cares!?

[@babagandu]

So when are you founding your utopia ?

[@EdwardCoffey]

Acknowledge the concerns of the technical experts during design rather than grudgingly acknowledge them during implementation? Crazy talk! There's a similar situation in software, where experts in what's practical to implement are often not consulted until after many key design decisions have been made. Sometimes I wonder if such workflows are deliberate, driven by experience/fear that involving the experts early means the beautiful product vision gets crushed and the project goes nowhere. The attitude seems to be that projects proceed best when the experts are put on the back foot, forced to come up with a quick compromise in a high pressure situation, rather than being allowed the time to come up with an optimal solution at the start.

[@SpectatorAlius]

Even more scary, Product Management *likes* doing things this way! They think it will allow them to capture "mind-share" in the market and stay ahead of their more responsible, thoughtful competition.

[@Grk149]

I do a lot of things from my phone and other mobile devices but I have never felt that 4G was slow for any of my use cases, even the heaviest ones. Even now I turn off 5G, too much battery drain for no observable difference

[@BullCheatFR]

What mmWave really does is allow much higher density. You can serve faster data to a lot more people in a small area. 5G includes mmWave, among other technologies. 5G itself mostly allow network operators to reduce cost and complexity. In a lot of cases, 4G/LTE works perfectly fine and the transition to 5G does not include mmWave. But not everywhere.

[@phangkuanhoong7967]

I have a question: Why do we need 5G at all? I personally can't see the point of "instant data" when we're experiencing pretty near "instant" data at the moment.

[@enadegheeghaghe6369]

Downloading 5GB of data in 15 minutes is quite different from downloading the same amount of data in less than a minute. Now that speed increase may not be useful to you personally but that does not mean that it isn't important or useful for others

[@ZotyLisu]

well I enjoy fast internet, try downloading a 300GB video game, watching something in 4K, or better, stream in 4K on twitch - some places dont have fiber optic

[@Berkhoi]

It's similar to aeroplanes speed increases. You may be OK with arriving an our late but a businessperson can't afford such delays. Check out why stock broker companies are so close to internet service providers.

[@alihenderson5910]

@@ZotyLisu Your desperate first world needs have totally convinced me. Smh.

[@MCToon]

5G is just a marketing term. There is a new specification about every 2 years. A collection of features in the 2015 specification were arbitrarily called 5G. They could have chosen to give it no name and continued to call it 4G indefinitely. It's just the evolution of the specification. The specifications constantly improve, add more features, increase speed, etc. It is necessary because there are more cell phones and other cell devices every day. And the request for data from the network increases every day.

[@angrydoggy9170]

Biggest problem I have with 5G is the usefulness. Than again, I’m not bothered about not having the ability to watch or stream stuff all the time. If anything, I rather enjoy being off grid.

[@TheZachary86]

5G is mostly for system wide operations not the average user. Think autonomous vehicles, autonomous manufacturing, remote operations of machines from office

[@Hideyoshi1991]

how're you using internet if you're "off grid"

[@ericvulgate]

'Off grid' means different things. Could just be no water or electricity. I'm off grid and have internet on my phone. There's no water or electricity here I charge stuff with my truck or solar batteries.

[@angrydoggy9170]

@@ericvulgate I mostly charge my devices with my wood stove.

[@angrydoggy9170]

@@Hideyoshi1991 Sometimes buddy, sometimes.

[@TheMrawesomest]

The millimeter wave joke is really really good. I'm sending you decameter waves for that.

[@ImperatorSomnium]

Just out of curiousity - aren't tHz frequencies used for weapons development, especially in the material sciences part of weapons research?

[@schnitznschnatzn]

EM Waves in the 430 to 750THz range are used to illuminate our environment at night 😉

[@ImperatorSomnium]

@@schnitznschnatzn As it's obvious, I really don't understand this matter, I only remember reading something us army research on tHz waves and using them upon some newly engineered metamaterial....or something like this...

[@burnheart123]

@@ImperatorSomnium do you mean Lasers? These are in the Terahertz range and could be used as weapons.

[@ImperatorSomnium]

@@burnheart123 I really don't know and I still can't find the article....anyway it's not important at all, just curiousity 🙃

[@schnitznschnatzn]

@@burnheart123, good point. Lasers would fit that category.

[@videoinformer]

Could the problem be turned into a benefit by using ubiquitous 5G equipment to make atmospheric measurements as an incidental activity during telecommunications? Surely, changing atmospheric conditions create variations in how a signal is received compared to how it was sent. From the perspective of telecommunications, atmospheric variation is a problem. But, the way in which telecom devices compensate for the problem should provide a lot of information about changing atmospheric conditions. With telecommunications being ubiquitous, they could provide a much larger data set, everywhere, compared to what NOAA could gather from specialized equipment.

[@PinataOblongata]

I like this idea, but I suspect there would be too many other variables changing the signal reception to be practical - after all, this bandwidth gets stopped by trees. That's largely because they're full of water. Guess what else is mostly water? Us.

[@svensvensson8102]

It most definitely can and this has been researched quite extensively. But there must be a compelling business case and willing participants.

[@frp8871]

Another important application of weather forecast is predicting energy production from renewable sources (wind, sun) which together with demand forecast helps keeping our electrical networks regulated, i.e. avoiding needing a candle

[@johnwolf2829]

Some things actually do change in this stagnant century. I remember hearing on New Years day in 2000 that half the people in the world had never made or received a Phone call in their lives. Ain't exactly the case now, is it?

[@stevemolloy1289]

No that's, still pretty much true,get outa your bubble

[@hakan8997]

And every electronic device that had a older data chip would stop working at midnight Dec 31

[@EidosTrantorianum]

"... and it's not because millimeter waves are also used as goodbyes for in-laws."

[@Volodimar]

I didn't get by the way

[@rikujantti3307]

Majority of the 5G deployments in Europe use 3.5 GHz band and there seems not yet be actual demand for mmWave. Also the 5G mmWave has performance challenges and it is currently mainly limited to be used for fixed wireless access. mmWave and sub-THz communications require beam-forming, but pointing those very narrow beams to mobile phones is very difficult… It remains to be seen if this problem can be solved. If not, the 6G 100GHz links will be just point-to-point links connecting the base stations to the core network.

[@Ironic1950]

5G uses the exact same bands and air interface (COFDM) as 4G. mmWave will never be deployed, as WiFi calling is better.

[@James_Knott]

@@Ironic1950 5G has a few more bands on 4G. Also, WiFi means you have to configure the WiFi to connect to whatever AP is in the vicinity. Easy enough at home, not so much elsewhere unless some standard SSID is used.

[@Ironic1950]

@@James_Knott you are correct; the BT WiFi (which does voice & data) is managed entirely by their app, so no user config is required, the SSID is hidden, but known to the app, as is the passcode, so zero config, it just works. There may be more bands in the US, but only sensible bands, below 2.5GHz will be used. UK has adopted 4G at 700MHz, but it is an adjunct to the emergency services Airwave Tetra system, not for public use (I did coverage checks for it, from a test transmitter in Norfolk)..

[@James_Knott]

@@Ironic1950 I'm in Canada, which has similar spectrum use as U.S.. The bands here range from 600 MHz to 3.5 GHz. MmWave isn't available here yet. My carrier, Rogers, uses all of the available bands, as far as I can tell, including the 5 GHz WiFi band, at least for LTE. Does that BT app require any action by the user?

[@cyriljamest.bualm.d.8867]

Wow. That was a very clear way of presenting the 5G problem. Before this, I was unaware of this issue. Subscribing now for more videos like this. Thanks.

[@mymodel6]

How deep must the cave you live in be, for you to not even know 5G was a concern..?

[@QALibrary]

5G seems safe to me unless you are a Boeing aircraft in America - remember 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5G in the USA is not the same as in Europe - both parts of the world used different frequencies - hence why 5G around USA airports been banned/stoped due to known interference with the landing and take off of Boeing aircraft which does not happen in Europe.

[@bizzzzzzle]

Yes, idk why the airline industry isn’t making a bigger public fuss, and it’s not just Boeing, it’s most emergency ground altimeters. There’s a good study of flights at O’Hare airport, it’s pretty scary tbh.

[@CycleWerkz]

@@bizzzzzzle Because it was their fault.

[@witwisniewski2280]

Just like with the moisture sensing, the telecom industry, the new kid on the block, is expecting established aviation safety systems to be disabled just to give 5G more bandwidth. It is our (citizens's) fault that we tolerate corruption in our government instead of sharpening our pitchforks.

[@bizzzzzzle]

@@CycleWerkz no, there are actual laws that say that aircraft equipment has first rights to the bandwidth

[@CycleWerkz]

@@bizzzzzzle Hmm, thanks so much for sharing your legal expertise. Please do cite the laws for my reference. Where will you begin to look for such laws? While you're at it, please do describe how anything done by carriers or manufacturers of cellular systems violated these laws. Did these laws indicate how much of the band shall remain fully clear, fully down to the natural noise floor? Or did it specify a certain bandwidth, within certain levels, as the FCC does with every other band allocation? Or perhaps we should all just assume your quick reply here is authoritative with no references at all?

[@Caveman57]

This is a great channel! Sabine is a great host. Lots of helpful and interesting information prepped with humor and a bit of irony and sarcasm. So glad I found it!

[@golfaddict75]

Keep in mind only a small fraction of 5G will ever be millimeter wavelength. Why? Because it’s way too expensive to deploy everywhere with very limited range. The antennas are on poles not towers. And will on roll out in densely populated areas like downtown/malls. The rest of 5G runs over the same bands as 4G so the interference concern is overblown imho.

[@maalikserebryakov]

The world is running out of sources of electricity generation. 5g is a waste of time. We should prepare to go back to an age of horses and donkeys as transportation

[@RavingMad]

Thanks Dr. SH for another wonderful video on this topic. I would like to add my own thoughts as typical of any couch dwelling expert who watches a bunch of KZbin videos: These generations of technologies absolutely need to be developed. This will be essential in the future. While it has many earthly advantages, it will be much more essential for interplanetary communications. However, 1) There's a capitalistic play here which is causing a bit of an issue. Scientific research and development now a days seem more tied to corporate bottomline than ever before. Corporations (such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Vodafone, Telenor etc.) needed 5G faster than the scientific community and research facilities could have it refined and properly evaluated. These corporations also sit in the board of these research organizations and support the research with actual funding. Therefore they have the full control of what gets put out and when. Just a basic example various 3G technologies are actually still getting refined under the guise of 5G. All through 4G we were mostly getting a set of 3G technologies refined every so often. Now that many of these companies have deployed "5G" the reality is that, 4G is finally being deployed in its full glory while 1 OR 2, 5G specific technology has also been deployed in a few specific tower of the highest density and most convenient (for deployment) area. This makes these corporations not liars while showing the public that they are constantly innovating and are on top of their game. I don't see this pattern changing I.e. we'll see 5G technologies to start roll out en masse under the guise of 6G and be fully refined by the time 7G is around. 2) Our phones saying 5/4/3G does not say anything about what technology it's actually using. The wireless carriers along with the phone manufacturers decide what the phones report to us. 3) The most important gain from generation upon generation of wireless communication technology actually has been the improvement in latency not the bandwidth. Of course bandwidth has improved significantly, but latency is most important factor to determine the quality of a communication channel. This is not easy to grasp because most of us are not well versed in communication protocols and their wireless kins. High latency has severe impact on how well these protocol functions. For example it's possible for the latency to get so high that the actual communication comes to a crawl while bandwidth remains up there, this is because bad data packets are jamming the channel. Analogy: let's say I only speak Japanese and another person I'm going to communicate with speaks only Italian. I can directly speak Japanese to this person and there will be 0 communication. I could remove noise and be in a quite room with this person and speak as loudly as necessary but there's 0 communication. I won't understand the Italian and this person won't understand Japanese. This is high bandwidth but extremely high latency. I could have a Japanese to English translator and other person could have English to Italian translator. In the same low noise environment, now we have managed to reduce the latency down to high but tolerable level. we could have communication but despite potential for very fast communication our translator bottleneck causing latency is not 0. Of course anyone can figure out how to improve the latency in this scenario. The thing to realize is that it's impossible to fully eliminate this latency for our actual wireless communication scenario, because: a) we are not able to eliminate noise, and wireless medium will always have unpredictable amount of noise, increasing frequency of the radio waves to the point that it becomes as close to flat line as possible is the way to eliminate noise at which point we've transferred over to straight line Fibre optics channel. However, I think the future physicists will be able to solve this problem of medium. b) we have to always have translation layer because at the level of usable communication we are using disparate systems and protocols (which make up the internet)

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

You mean fake information. Thousands of studies about frequencies in the IIIIIG range were deleted from the PubMed, THE BIGGEST MEDICAL RESEARCH REPOSITORY ONLINE. KZbin censors IIIIIG content. My comments were deleted six times. All the accepted research on the safety of IIIIIG advocates it safety but are anti scientific. Government says it's not to worry so panic.

[@tnijoo5109]

She is my new favorite KZbinr. ❤️ insane I only found this channel today.

[@nottsork]

its interesting that they say everything will be available instantly , because recently i upgraded to gigabit broadband in the uk and kept a close eye on aggregated download speeds , and was shocked to learn that most single providers, USE quality of service that limits speeds to 70 Megabits , so having a 900 megabit download only helps if someone is serving Multi source peer to peer download services , or i have an entire class room trying to all update game data from separate servers at once so back to everything available instantly ? erm, if you mean miniscule webpages , or documents that are not image heavy , then yes but any serious amount of data ? like a photographic catalogue of Sabine's Eye Brow Follicles , i think we will still be waiting for some time for the download , weather wired or wireless

[@alanzee_]

Exactly, why do we need 5G and all its problems? 4G is fast enough for most ordinary users.

[@hotdognl70]

That claim is indeed as strong as the weakest link in the chain. That weakest link used to be the transmission to the end user but has moved now to the servers and all hubs in between. But that side of the story won't sell 5G to the general public.

[@Alondro77]

The utility from this new tech is dubious at best. I don't see any benefits at all for those who live outside urban areas. It's really about TRACKING USERS at every instant. Think about it: the phones have to constantly acquire new connections because the frequencies are blocked by solid materials. Meaning, they'll need to put a gazillion receivers all over the place... and they'll be able to pinpoint each person with a phone to within a few feet within seconds based on the rapid triangulation of these closely-spaced receivers.

[@stargazer7644]

@@Alondro77 I hate to tell you, but your phone already has dedicated AGPS hardware in it to do exactly that. No upgraded network required. It’s for the enhanced 911 system.

[@Alondro77]

@@stargazer7644 Ah, but my tiny phone is OFF when I turn it off. I know this because I can let it sit for a week off and the battery doesn't drain at all. Therefore, I cannot be tracked unless I turn it on.

[@oraz.]

You covered the safety issue perfectly. I agree with you. I don't think we will follow the precautionary principle because of money and it's disappointing about the low quality research. I think the WHO is political and not helpful too. I don't need that much data available to my phone anyway.

[@Cougar139tweak]

@ 2:44 I do this for a living (EME technical specialist) and yes we have to add power and additional channels, many going from 200w per sector to 1500w per sector as you should know the higher the Frequency, the Higher the attenuation (Signal Loss)....hell a good stand of trees can weaken the signal dramatically....that's why we use Macro cells (on power poles and streetlights) The old system in the 80's was much more aggressive AMPS and 2G CDMA in reference to Power/Freq...... We still stay many db (9db to 15db) below WHO standards for maximum non occupational exposure. By the way these frequencies are nothing new, and in fact many Wi-Fi used and are still using them. The only impact currently known is surface heating of tissue. You should be more concerned with High Voltage Powerlines and FM....we certainly do. That being said, continue being a Skeptic, (what people now call a "Conspiracy Theorist") wish people did in the 60's regarding Asbestos and Agent Orange...ect...

[@Chriswsm]

In the UK the 5G frequencies are on the same frequencies previously used by television stations for many years. TV broadcasts are at a higher power level than 5G transmitters because there were fewer of them and they were further apart. You could fry an egg on a TV transmitter. You can't even warm your hands on a 5G transmitter. There has not been any publicly announced massive increase of any illnesses that corresponds with TV frequencies in the UK over the years so I have no concerns. My 5G enabled phone will arrive tomorrow as my my area is enabled and my 4 year old Pixel 2 is on its last legs.

[@steveb9542]

What frequencies are you talking about here? Analogue tv broadcasts were at much lower frequencies (3.5GHz) IIRC it was 3G that used those frequencies.

[@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20]

@@steveb9542 5G has large amount of frequencies, some are low (600 MHz), some are high. Here is some of them; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

[@alihenderson5910]

"Precious"😵

[@engineerinnewyork]

@@steveb9542 Flatly untrue

[@steveb9542]

@@engineerinnewyork care to elaborate?

[@kinpatu]

16:00 Not 30 orders of magnitude. 30dB is 3 decimal orders of magnitude.

[@MainebobOConnor]

Has research begun on the Gosh-G radio band? It's said to be amazing! Thanks Sabine🙃

[@BleachWizz]

14:20 - of course it's a natural progression. 6 is the next number from 5, I still wonder how they managed to jump from 2.4 all the way to 5. Anyway, I try to imagine when we get like 69Gs... we might even send data to the past!!!

[@taylankammer]

Oh man, these claims about "6G/7G/etc. will be so fast that you'll never have wait times" are frustrating me so much. The faster hardware becomes, the more bloated people make their software, so in the end you still have annoying wait times. Just look at the state of the Internet today. So many ad banners, fonts being loaded from ten different sources, auto-playing videos, and other crap. If a website only contained the text and graphics we actually want to see, things would already load instantly with 4G levels of speed. It's the same with software performance. CPUs, RAM, and SSDs have gotten ridiculously fast compared to what we had in the past, and yet you still have programs hanging and taking long times to load, because they're packed with so much nonsense that nobody needs.

[@unsettledroell]

On the other hand, we can play games in 4K 120Hz now, which was absolutely not possible 5 years ago. Also, we have services such as Netflix, which would be close to impossible 15 years ago. So the question is really, what do we expect to need in 5 years? Answer is, ultra low latency, high capacity and ultra reliable communications. 5G attempts to tackle all 3... the mmWave part is really only a slice of the network which takes care of the capacity part.

[@1GTX1]

@@unsettledroell I was watching footage of concerts and endless number of videos on ''google videos'' more than 15 years ago, and grew up watching documentaries on youtube in 2007 and latter, and even some movies, Anything you can imagine was uploaded and streamed, even though it was in parts. So i'm not that impressed with Netflix.

[@unsettledroell]

@@1GTX1 and you could count the pixels too is my guess?

[@1GTX1]

@@unsettledroell 720p was introduced already at the end of 2008 and 1080p in 2009

[@unsettledroell]

@@1GTX1 and you had a 4K capable GPU back then?

[@zelbug9995]

Regarding health affects, the airport security detectors use mmWave in the 24-30 GHz range so if there is a problem it would have been apparent. Note you receive million time more energy from the phone than what you receive from a tower because of the distance you are from the phone vs the cell tower. Regarding the leakage, 400 MHz is a fairly large guard band and is easy to measure. 3GPP in Geneva does specify the roll off of the signal. Guard bands between communication channels in the bands are in the 1 to 2 MHz range, hence I don’t see issues with 5G

[@robertlong2531]

In the world of radio coms, a 400 MHz guard band I'd of thought is generous and I suppose the risk of any significant skyward radiation would most likely come from a faulty, loose or misaligned cell tower antenna. That would surely be a pretty rare occurrence.

[@joshuascholar3220]

Most of T-Mobile's 5G is at 600 MHz. 5G isn't a specific wavelength, it's a protocol.

[@ldbarthel]

The protocol defines the ranges of frequencies that can be used-that's part of the hardware design. Otherwise you could just use an old Nokia on a 5G network. FTR, T-Mobile uses 600 MHz as it's primary 5-G band. It's supplemented by 39 GHz in Las Vegas and 28 GHz in the other five markets.

[@viniciusvbf22]

We'll probably not have "instantly data with no progress bars", even with 6G or 7G, first because the data bandwidth is only one constraint (you still have to process it and present it, which takes a good amount of time) and, second, the amount of data grows accordingly. We'll probably be streaming 8K videos from KZbin. Your smartphone will have 10X the RAM that it has today, but the programs (based on despicable new tech like Electron which runs *AN ENTIRE* web browser engine for each application in the background - hello MS Teams, Slack, Discord and others!) will eat all of it, demanding even more bandwidth and processing power.

[@jurjenbos228]

Since the 1960s, the user interface of computers have been approximately equally fast: if it gets faster, someone makes a "more advanced" interface that is slower again.

[@JorgetePanete]

Make webs with rust.

[@bernb]

There might be no programs (in the sense of "apps") running on consumer devices in the future. 5G does not only increase the bandwith, it does also decrease the latency. If you think it through it is not really efficient to built billions and billions of computers that fit into a pocket aka smartphones. Just keep the sensors, the screen (however, everything will be AR/VR of course) glued together with an antenna and some video stream decoding chip. So, the smartphone of the future won't have 10x the RAM it will have 1/10th of the RAM at best.

[@viniciusvbf22]

I see your vision, but I don't believe it will happen so soon, though. We're adding 5G (or any other network) as a dependency for the device to work at all, as a thin client. A processor will still be needed for some features like camera, GPS, or even to boot the device in the first place - like it is even in "dumb terminals".

[@RasmusSchultz]

Explain why we would need to stream in 8K on a 6 inch device, please. The human eye can't discern pixels even at 4K, which is already a ridiculous resolution on any portable device, even a tablet or laptop. In your home you have WiFi. So. What is this actually for? My strong suspicion is this exists not for the consumers sake, but mainly to keep telecoms "developing" so they can look busy, make their investors happy, and receive government subsidies. 🤨

[@IanKemp1960]

Thank you an excellent vidio especially the part around 16 mins where you point out the tradeoffs between technology for living vs the ability to get better data to enable technology for living :-D 😀

[@kinetic92]

5G Is very common in various bands between 3.3-4.2GHz and at around 2.6GHz too. 5G on mm-wave bands is probably not going anywhere due to path loss and other issues described in the video.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

Can we just simply not use the bands near what the scientists use?

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@D R Then we can just move the bands from what the scientists use to outside the range used by anyone.

[@stargazer7644]

You’re way out of date. Mm wave 5G is already designed.

[@James_Knott]

Bands a low as 600 MHz are used. Any band that's already in use can be used. In fact, we have some spectrum coming clear with 2G and 3G being shut down, which could be used for 5G and even 4G, since dynamic spectrum sharing is used to have both on the same band.

[@timsexton]

I agree, the design stage for each new iteration is when everyone (including the scientists) should be involved in the discussion to have their concerns heard, evaluated, etc. Hearings about their complaints right before or even during an upgrade rollout is a clear indication there is little, if any regard for scientists' concerns by decision makers & planners in the wireless industry. *_TRUST !!_*

[@leonewton383]

Trust or Sue the globalists if their tech causes injury...

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

These are the same people that told us that smoking was good for us. That kids that ate candy were healthier than those that didn't. The only thing they've proven is that they think we are all idiots, and we'll believe whatever they tell us. It might actually be the thing that they've been the most correct about actually.

[@2bfrank657]

@@MikeJones-wp2mw what has been proven is that there are good scientists, and bad scientists.

[@ElementalAer]

It was also science who discovered tobacco use and excess sugar is bad for us. Science has it's limitations, and new studies always come out. Scientists are not idiots, they just say what the experimental data demonstrate, not eternal truths

[@MusicalZombie]

_"With xG we'll have such incredibly fast speeds that no progress bars or wait times will be required for any normal amount of data, at least at today's standards. Everthing will just be available...instantly"_ While in countries like Germany the providers are still counting the number of sent SMS... Ridiculous. 🙄

[@Gubby-Man]

I think you should at least mention that there’s low-band 5G (400-2000Mhz), mid-band 5G (

[@Gubby-Man]

@StringerNews1 I wouldn’t call her crazy. In fact this video was well researched and she had good valid points with some information that I didn’t know about. As a subscriber to this channel it should go without saying that I respect her. I think it’s really important to point out that most of the 5G spectrum is similar to 4G as I said in my prior comment. There are a lot of people that are against 5G as a whole and we should be better at informing them.

[@engineerinnewyork]

@@Gubby-Man Your comment regarding the fallacy of equating 5G with any frequency band is absolutely correct, and I also agree that the public needs to be well informed. Which is not what the lady here has done.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@Gubby-Man Batshit crazy. She calls flat earth "theory" intelligent. Her bullshit on higher dimensions and her claims about SR are hair-raising. Respecting her translates to profound disrespect for science.

[@justvideos3216]

And 5G is using a lot more energy than 4G, because you need much more small receivers to cover the area. Furthermore there are nearly no use cases which really need 5G except military use cases. (What is the real purpose for introducing the new technology)

[@isakjohansson7134]

Finding and prosecuting dissidence through information gathering and monetary transactions. When cash has been banned. "For our safety".

[@alihenderson5910]

5g is for 'them' not us.

[@unsettledroell]

Short sighted, the small towers use less power than the big ones. 4G towers can easily eat up 2kW or more just for the RF generation and transmission, 5G panels are closer to ~100W for small stations.

[@isakjohansson7134]

@@unsettledroell Yeah but you need more small ones than large ones

[@alanh8664]

The FAA has serious issues the 5G; as I recall that was the reason adoption slowed down in USA. Aircraft ground proximity radar at landing is in this band. Trusting the WHO for my health, agina, that sealed my opinion! Thanks, Alan (retired aerospace engr.)

[@Ironic1950]

5G is not a frequency band. 5G uses the exact same bands and air interface as 4G. millimetreWave is an extension that will never be used.

[@James_Knott]

That "problem" came about because no one had done any testing. They just assumed. Turns out it's much less than claimed and easily fixed.

[@James_Knott]

@@Ironic1950 I expect it will be used, but only in high density environments. Otherwise it doesn't do much. However, it might be useful in fixed links.

[@flagmichael]

@@Ironic1950 The mm band is what makes 5G high throughput. It is already in service and that is how we know about the radar altimeter problem. The Mentour Now video, "WHY Could 5G be DANGEROUS to Aircraft?!" covers it very well. Petter also mentions the reason there is no "filter" solution; radar altimeters are swept frequency, covering a pretty wide sweep. The sweep is done with a sawtooth waveform, changing the carrier frequency linearly. When mixed with the received signal the products represent a spectrum of signals; the lowest ones are the nearest.

[@REALfreaky]

FYI: 4G and 5G is really just a protocol that dictates how the towers and the phones talk to each other. 5G can use the exact same frequencies as 4G - and it actually does in most markets. The problem is with idiotic carriers who want to be able to advertise the insane speeds only capable with mmWave, despite it being completely impractical - even your own hand can completely block mmWave from reaching your phone. It's a complete waste of spectrum even before you take into account the weather predictions issues. With all that said, 5G as a protocol is actually a huge upgrade over 4G in terms of reliability - the extra speed is just a marketable bonus. If we could just reallocate all the old 3G & 4G spectrum and use it for 5G, then things would be great. Unfortunately, that would require everyone in North America to replace all their legacy devices, so that's not happening anytime soon.

[@dinosilone7613]

Totally agree, though in a macrocellular environment, 4G is already pretty damn good so we may be operating at the point of diminishing returns even in low and mid-band spectrum. The thing 5G does offer in the lower bands is more carrier aggregation and combination possibilities, which can be used to give a higher peak rate. The benefits of this remain to be seen, though, since they only marginally increase capacity, and those peak rates will be hard to see in a crowded environment. The focus on mmWave is really boxing 3GPP technologies into direct competition with Wi-Fi in terms of the realistic use cases, e.g. in-building, short range. But it does it at a MUCH higher cost (about 10x the cost). Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that 5G has mostly been a flop.

[@karthick86c]

Well balanced view on the subject Dr.Sabine. Much appreciated.

[@poisontoad8007]

Hey Sabine! I love what you do however have to pull you up on something... Here in NZ we have a 'Predator-Free 2050' mandate as our ecological management protocol. That means not a squirrel feeder in sight!

[@generrosity]

tbh, she could swap that out for 'kiwi live feeds' and not be wrong 😜🥝

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Dang! 😅

[@robertpearce8394]

Sorry, I should have checked the comments as I just made a similar comment. However, you could still have squirrel feeders, I have a kiwi feeder in the UK.

[@poisontoad8007]

@@robertpearce8394 We do not have squirrel feeders as we thankfully have no squirrels. But you say you're a Kiwi feeder? If by that you mean you feed starving NZ travellers then I thank you for your service Sir!

[@lt3880]

lmao

[@pyrobreather1]

In general, IF a new technology creates conditions radically different than those to which we and our fellow organisms have adapted for millions of years, we should be pleasantly and gratefully surprised if there *isn't* a harm.

[@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20]

The very difficult thing here is to define what means "radically". Is 5G radically different? It's very very low in power compared to other sources of EM radiation people are subjected to . . .

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20 i suppose radio transmission in general would be the radical

[@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20]

@@nmarbletoe8210 Is it more radical than for example using artificial light during the dark?

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@wopmf4345FxFDxdGaa20 Hmmm, i'd say no, artificial light is probably a bigger change for sure. Starting with fire! Fire good. When og first make fire ouch! Hand go hot. Then Og wife angry. Where tree, Og? Tree go hot. Og, where tiger fur? Tiger fur go hot. So fire bad bad say. Then Og make fire place. Now fire good. In conclusion fire good.

[@lesbendo6363]

Interesting. Soon we will get the answer before asking the question! Boy that is fast! Good video. 🇨🇦

[@raccoonresident5760]

Problem is Sabine. I came from an engineering world. Any report which goes near a politician gets politically changed, regardless of the data accuracy. It reflects the view of the politicians view. If a contentious sentence or word is too strong like SHALL, they weaken it with the worn might or may, which changes the mood of the structure of the dialect everyone will read.

[@clermeil]

I love that Sabine punctuates her typical staid teutonism with bits of subtle but hilarious humor such as 3:27.

[@jamesstevens2362]

Thanks, I missed that bit. Too busy trying to see if she does pluck her eyebrows. 😉

[@univacbill]

Great video and good job on the eyebrows!

[@specific_pseudonym]

This reminds me of the other thing that 5G has interfered with: Airplane ground distance sensors. In that case, the bands used by airlines were out of the leakage range, but their receivers were too sensitive, being triggered by frequencies far from their assigned band - and the one that they actually transmitted at. This led to discussion about regulations on radio *sensitivity*, specifically that in order to meet specifications, receivers should not detect signal outside their assigned transmission ranges. In that case, the airlines were complaining because of their own lack of willingness to engineer things right. Could the same principle would apply here? Yes, there's leakage, but could new satellites be engineered better to reduce their gain outside the chemical detection ranges? It's not an ideal solution, but with how the USA tends to just do stupid things, I'm hoping this would be a viable workaround.

[@robertredmon5409]

T-mobile had this exact issue last year and had to shut down their network upgrades for several months while they worked out a solution.

[@kevinmcdonough9097]

That's a super interesting case, and we could definitely stand to regulate frequency sensitivity for safety-related devices, but unfortunately that trick won't help us here. While the unavoidable consequences of spectral leakage affect both systems, the implications are quite different because they have vastly different designs & noise requirements. Ground proximity sensors are relatively "simple" since they are detecting a single point of data: the distance to the enormous solid ground. To do this, sensors only need to recognize a low-throughput signal and use transmission delay to gauge distance. As long as the signal isn't completely "drowned out" by noise, lowering noise further won't improve accuracy. The manufacturers neglected to consider the noise would increase and didn't see a need to invest in more expensive band filters. Weather sensors, on the other hand, they are trying to take a high-resolution "pictures" of water vapor and their accuracy is entirely related to the noise floor. Since forecast accuracy is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the data, weather satellites have always benefited from reduced noise and as a result already have near-optimal filters. So any additional leakage from the new 5G band is more or less unavoidable. There's a dense but informative Wikipedia article on spectral leakage if you're curious.

[@KilkennyCatXR]

Perhaps a bit of AI on the processing of satellite data to take into account (or mask out) the local levels of 5G around built-up areas.

[@eliahabib5111]

The airplane issue was device doing something it's not supposed to do: picking up signals outside the required range... solution fix it. The water data issue is 5g adding fake water signals for satelite to pick up. Since the problem is leaakage you cannot remove it. Solutions: 1) limit noise genaration to a level it has a minor impact on water vapor measurement (limit antenna power to reduce leakge strenght) 2) measure and map leakge to cancel the noise from the measument (like atmosferic distortion cancellation in ground based telescope). But I don't think we have a good meathod to measure the noise and if I undertand correctly the power level of the towers is adjusted dynamically so you cannot just map it. And this ignorw the end user devices themselves.

[@exponentmantissa5598]

The receivers on those planes are complete garbage, their front end gets overloaded by signals from outside of their bands. There are lots of engineering fixes for it. Airline manufacturers sat silent until the 5G rollout and only then voiced concern because they didnt want the spotlight on their lousy engineering.

[@alsavery9306]

Did the meteorologists try to join the 5G conference in 2008 when the 5G standards started? If not, then they failed to forecast the current storm.

[@DivineLightPaladin]

Ha

[@zer0b0t]

So let's say two or more "safe" waves overlap (as in different cell phone carriers signals), wouldn't that potentially turn it into a hazard? Do their tests check for this?

[@ktakashismith]

My principal complaint with 5G is that it is, as far as I have experienced, no faster than 4G ever was. Granted, some of that has to do with having native higher-resolution video on most devices, but the consumer experience is the same. I do also appreciate the question you alluded to with regards to 6G - is this even necessary? Do we really need holographic TikToks filling the bathroom stall on our lunch break?

[@GFXAnimations3dmodels]

yes because files aren't getting bigger and bigger, 10 years ago you could manage with a 500 GBHDD and now a 5TB storage is mediocre

[@itstheweirdguy]

I've seen over 350 megs with 5g in UW mode on my iphone. 4g can't do that. Is that speed necessary or in any way useful to me? NO.

[@cewla3348]

@@itstheweirdguy KZbin runs on 20 at 720p (megaBYTES). That's all I need.

[@cewla3348]

@@GFXAnimations3dmodels the "expanding" files are, most likely, visuals. So, do we need 3d visuals now that our 2d visuals are hyperrealistic?

[@BIOSHOCKFOXX]

On phones I was thinking the same thing, without experience, except seeing how fast it works now, that the increase in speed wont be noticeable, because it already is fast. Maybe instant speed can be noticeable, but not by 1ms or 4. There is almost no visual difference in monitors between 1ms and 4ms for example, maybe competitive gamers in tournaments feel, but on average level it's the same like having connection speed just increased by few ms, average person wont even feel it. So basically the product is being sold as this super speed thing that in reality you wont feel, it will mostly still depend from your device hardware of processing it, as well as general connectivity.

[@TopLob]

Having done some scientific literature reviews myself, I can say with a lot of confidence that most research is not well-designed. That's not unique to 5G. When you do a scientific literature review, you're doing it with the goal to find a gap in our scientific knowledge. If you don't find anything, you've probably done a very poor review, as there are always gaps. The scientific method isn't a way for geniuses to flawlessly find the ultimate truth, but rather a method for regular, very flawed humans to find the most likely truth. You'll very rarely find perfectly executed research. Even the people who have created such amazing technology such as quantum computers don't really understand the full complexity of what they're working on. They understand it better than 99.99% of humanity, but they themselves will tell you that no one truly knows how it works or why. So, when you tell me that a lot of research into 5G didn't pass the most rigorous standards, I'm not surprised at all. However, a genius can be horribly mistaken if they have the wrong information, but an idiot can be correct with they use the right methodology. Still, most people will end up somewhere in between. They're normal people who use flawed methodology to get a step or two closer to the truth.