Syndication

giovedì 30 aprile 2020

I server consumano più dell'industria aeronautica



Con i server che portano ad una produzione di anidride carbonica  maggiore dell'intera industria aeronautica, i vantaggi della tecnologia intelligente richiedono un riesame urgente.


La tecnologia intelligente è stata promossa come "verde" perché può aiutare a monitorare e ridurre le emissioni di carbonio e raggiungere l'efficienza energetica. Ma è questo il quadro completo?!

https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/30/smart-techs-carbon-footprint

Shift Project report, Lean ICT, Toward Digital Sobriety, suggests. 

Il rapporto raccomanda di passare da "intemperanza a sobrietà nel nostro rapporto con le tecnologie digitali"

Fondamentalmente è spingere  l'idea che gli individui e le aziende possano auto-limitare il loro acquisto e utilizzo delle apparecchiature 'smart'. Ma questo è chiaramente contrario agli imperativi finanziari delle grandi aziende tecnologiche e alle loro strategie di marketing.


Wi-Fi CERTIFIED WiGig™ ... altro nuovo Wifi ... a 60 GHz

Wi-Fi CERTIFICATO WiGig ™ espande l'esperienza Wi-Fi® per realtà virtuale, streaming multimediale, giochi, docking wireless e applicazioni aziendali che richiedono connessioni ad alta velocità e ad alta intensità di dati. WiGig® consente ai dispositivi Wi-Fi di accedere alla banda di frequenza a 60 GHz non richiesta con ampi canali per trasmettere i dati in modo efficiente a velocità multi-gigabit al secondo. Gli utenti beneficiano della capacità estesa e della trasmissione mirata tra i dispositivi per ridurre le interferenze, anche in ambienti affollati.


Altra opzione di trasmissione dati e di inquinamento.  Quindi al nuovo Wifi-6!  A frequenze appartenenti allo onde millimetriche.

Io l'ho scoperto alla lettura di un rapporto  sulla Repubblica di San Marino che già da fine 2018 ha subito la installazione del 5G ma anche di queste antenne che sfruttano frequenze  che a quanto pare sono al di fuori della licenza all'uso ... quindi gratis per l'operatore.



qui trovate i riferimenti tecnici

https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-wigig

https://policyforum.att.com/innovation/project-airgig/


Altre fonti di informazioni tecniche



baubiologie magazin un contributo su 5G e le ns case


Riporto alcuni passi che mi sembrano più interessanti:


Nuove antenne e dimensioni delle celle
Quando analizziamo e valutiamo i segnali 5G, è importante considerare il nuovo design dell'antenna. Sono chiamati "intelligenti", soprattutto perché sono in grado di formare raggi di radio e microonde (i cosiddetti beamforming). Di conseguenza, la radiazione wireless non si diffonde indiscriminatamente ovunque, ma è diretta, almeno nella parte principale, verso l'utente di uno smartphone o di un altro dispositivo mobile. Le emissioni nella direzione dell'utente saranno probabilmente più elevate e quindi devono essere calcolate distanze di sicurezza maggiori per i siti di antenne cellulari. In passato, le distanze di sicurezza attorno alle antenne cellulari variavano in genere da 3 a 9 metri e ora piuttosto da 15 a 20 metri, come documentato nei certificati del sito dell'Agenzia federale tedesca delle reti.

Nuovo è anche lo schieramento molto più frequente delle cosiddette piccole celle, la cui copertura si estende a soli 200 metri. Sono, ad esempio, montati a lampioni, semafori, parchimetri su strada, pali delle utenze, bidoni della spazzatura o facciate di case, ma anche all'interno di edifici. Sebbene la potenza di trasmissione delle piccole cellule sia inferiore, le persone sono anche molto più vicine a queste antenne (piccole e quasi invisibili); inoltre, i fornitori di reti cellulari non sono tenuti ad avere un certificato del sito (a causa della bassa potenza di uscita inferiore a 10 W) perché i limiti di esposizione della 26a ordinanza federale sul controllo dell'inquinamento non si applicano qui (tuttavia, i siti devono essere segnalati a l'agenzia della rete federale tedesca).

Per ridurre l'esposizione personale, è meglio scegliere materiali da costruzione ad alta massa; nel caso di costruzioni leggere - per l'intero edificio o solo per la struttura del tetto - dovrebbe essere integrato uno strato di materiale schermante. I materiali di schermatura (vernici, tessuti, schermi), che sono stati finora comunemente utilizzati, non mostrano molta differenza nella loro efficacia di schermatura nella gamma di frequenze da circa 1 a 3 GHz rispetto alle attuali fonti di radiazione wireless come 2G , 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, DECT, ecc. A frequenze più alte sopra i 20 GHz, i materiali in mesh come tessuti e schermi sono meno efficaci, ma i materiali da costruzione ad alta massa e i trattamenti continui di superficie come le vernici sono più efficaci.
Sarà importante garantire che dispositivi e sistemi con antenne wireless 5G (o altre tecnologie wireless) non siano installati all'interno degli edifici a meno che non possano essere disabilitati - almeno di notte, dovrebbe esserci silenzio wireless. Ove possibile, le applicazioni per la casa intelligente dovrebbero utilizzare soluzioni cablate tramite cavi di rete o sistemi bus di cavo. (Nella nuova costruzione, è necessario utilizzare una grande quantità di cavi dati.
Si consiglia inoltre cautela con tutti gli apparecchi elettrici dotati di funzioni wireless: fare a meno delle funzioni wireless o assicurarsi che la modalità wireless utilizzata venga trasmessa solo di rado e per brevi periodi .

In futuro, la misurazione dei segnali 5G sarà molto probabilmente piuttosto difficile a causa delle grandi fluttuazioni dei livelli di potenza, a seconda di chi trasmette la quantità di dati . Ad esempio, le emissioni dalle antenne della stazione radio base ai dispositivi mobili formeranno almeno in parte raggi. Come si dovrebbero calcolare i livelli di potenza massima basati su misurazioni casuali? E quando non c'è traffico di dati, le emissioni di 5G potrebbero persino essere completamente chiuse !? Questi aspetti presenteranno nuove sfide alle misurazioni dell'esposizione del 5G.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5G – what is it?

5G refers to the latest generation of wireless technologies for cellular networks. This fifth generation goes well beyond basic communication between cell phones or the mobile Internet. After the first generation (1G) of analog networks (A, B, and C) in the 1960s and 1980s and the digital standards of the second generation (2G) GSM (D, E networks since 1991), the third generation (3G) UMTS/HSPA (since 2000), as well as the fourth generation (4G) LTE (since about 2010), wireless communication is now even faster (latency or response times will be about 1 millisecond). 
It is not anymore just about communication from person to person, but also from person to machine as well as from machine to machine, including such applications as the Internet of Things (IoT), smart homes, autonomous driving, telemedicine, intelligent power supply, smart metering, smart farming, or smart cities. These applications have come to infiltrate our daily lives at an accelerated pace. The new model VW Golf 8, for example, is designed to be online at all times and stay connected with the cloud. This car can also talk to other cars and to the driver’s home. The goal of 5G developers and providers is the “totally connected society.”

New bandwidths, frequencies, and pulses

5G offers many new technical advancements. Besides the previously mentioned extremely fast transmission speed, data rates are also very high. With up to 10 gigabits per second – ten times more than LTE – the electromagnetic signals require a greater bandwidth. First measurements of active 5G cell antenna sites in Germany (e.g. in Düsseldorf, Cologne, or Darmstadt) showed “frequency hills” as wide as 50 or 100 MHz. 
The initial 5G carrier frequencies will be not much different from the ones currently in use with 4G: Previous networks (2G, 3G, and 4G) mostly operated at 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 2600 MHz and networks used inside homes such as Wi-Fi/WLAN (wireless local area network) and cordless phones (DECT) at 1900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.2–5.7 GHz. 5G networks will at first mainly use 3.4–3.7 GHz, from 2021 also 2.1 GHz. In Germany, four telecommunications providers secured those frequencies (for a total revenue of ca. 6.6 billion euro) during an auction in spring 2019. In addition to Telekom, Vodafone, and Telefonica, there is now also 1&1 Drillich.
The significantly higher frequency ranges of about 24–28 GHz and 32–33 GHz or even higher, which are often hotly debated, will most likely only become deployed in a few years.
So-called pulses – which constantly and strictly periodically switch the wireless signals on and off, several times per second – are expected to be similar to LTE because the modulations are similar (e.g. 100 Hz or 2000 Hz). There will be a new pulse of 50 Hz, at least in the frequency range about 3.5 GHz (due to the TDD modulation used). During our first measurements, these nonstop pulses could also be clearly shown, both in “zero span” mode of a spectrum analyzer and as an audio signal with broadband RF meters.
RF spectrum analysis of 5G cell antenna sites:
(1) Spectrum of a nearly 90 MHz wide channel of a Telekom site, center frequency ca. 3.65 GHz
(2) Time analysis of the cellular signal of a Vodafone site with a clear 50 Hz pulse, center frequency ca. 3.53 GHz

New antennas and cell sizes

When we analyze and evaluate 5G signals, it is important to consider the new antenna design. They are called “smart,” especially since they are able to form beams of radio and microwaves (so-called beamforming). As a result, wireless radiation is not spread indiscriminately everywhere, but it is directed, at least the main portion of it, toward the user of a smartphone or other mobile device. The emissions in the user’s direction will be possibly higher and thus greater safety distances must be calculated for cell antenna sites. In the past, safety distances around cell antennas ranged typically from 3 to 9 meters and now rather from 15 to 20 meters, as documented in the site certificates of the German Federal Network Agency.
New is also the much more frequent deployment of so-called small cells, whose coverage extends to just 200 meters. They are, for example, mounted at street lights, traffic lights, on-street parking meters, utility poles, garbage cans, or house facades, but also inside buildings. Though the transmit power of small cells is lower, people are also much closer to these (small and almost invisible) antennas; in addition, cellular network providers are not required to have a site certificate (due to the low output power below 10 W) because the exposure limits of the 26th Federal Pollution Control Ordinance do not apply here (however, the sites are to be reported to the German Federal Network Agency).

Audio sample

Audio sample of a 5G signal from a Telekom antenna site with a clear 50 Hz pulse 

Health risks

There are hardly any research results available about risks specifically associated with the use of 5G wireless radiation. Already in 2017, more than 180 scientists and physicians from 36 countries signed an appeal. In this appeal, they warn of severe health risks associated with 5G wireless technologies and recommend putting a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation of wireless communication technologies until possible risks to human health and the environment have been fully researched by industry-independent scientists. They also state that it has been proven that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields are harmful to human health and the environment. The use of 5G will significantly increase the exposure to electromagnetic fields in the radio-frequency range since this new layer of signals will be added to the already existing networks of GSM, UMTS, LTE, Wi-Fi, and so on.
Since mid-band frequencies of 800, 2000, and 3500 MHz feature similar modulations and/or pulses as are found in GSM and LTE, associated risks are also expected to be similar. Should the above-described 50 Hz pulse turn out to be present at all times, this could make for more serious effects.
Regarding high-band frequencies above 20 GHz, we know rather little and rather little research has been done so far. Due to their short wavelengths, these waves hardly penetrate the body, but are absorbed at the surface of the body. First studies suggest that adverse health effects predominantly occur in eyes, skin, and sweat glands, possibly also ECG effects.
It is the official position of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Germany that any developments shall be closely watched, but that the compliance with the exposure limits of the 26th German Federal Pollution Control Ordinance are sufficient for now.

Will the exposure to wireless radiation increase with 5G?

Based on the currently available scientific evidence, it is not possible to answer with a clear: yes or no. Due to the higher amount of data that can be transmitted, there will certainly also be an increase in total transmissions. And with many more antennas and smaller cell sizes, people will get much closer to them. (Consequently, personal exposure levels in the immediate vicinity of small cell antennas can be higher despite the antennas’ lower output power). Because of the characteristic beamforming, it could also be possible that in some – or even many? – locations where 5G is available, but not actively used by a user, exposure levels could even be much lower compared to LTE. 
Furthermore, the higher frequencies about 3.5 GHz are typically much more strongly attenuated than those at 2 GHz or even 1 GHz, which is why in the former case indoor exposure levels could be lower. 
The pending shutdown of the UMTS networks will result in some reduction of exposure levels. So this specific type of wireless radiation, also including its pulses and risks, will disappear; however, these very frequencies will be added to 5G networks and thus exposures in this frequency band will continue to occur after all. 
In the future, possibly many new devices will operate at 5G frequencies inside buildings, which may contribute to much higher indoor exposure levels. It will be important to review on a case-by-case basis how much, how often, when, and where a given network is actively transmitting.
Caution is advised with higher frequencies, which are expected to be deployed later. As discussed earlier, in this higher frequency range, there will probably be other or additional risks.
Whether smartphones in 5G mode will emit more radiation than handsets in 2G, 3G, or 4G mode remains to be seen; 5G emission levels are currently not known or have not yet been measured by us (though the levels of intensity will most likely be similar to previous ones). 

5G satellites

Currently, there are 2000 telecommunications satellites zipping around the Earth and about 10,000 new ones are planned to be added – with 5G capabilities. From a building biology perspective, it could be an advantage that the great distance to the Earth’s surface translates into very low exposure levels (lower than 0.1 µW/m²), though admittedly everywhere.

Building biology recommendations

Everybody is encouraged both to raise awareness in a factual and constructive way among family members, friends, and coworkers and to campaign against 5G antennas or for installations with the lowest emissions possible. (Unfortunately, many of the 5G antennas will not be subject to approval so that actions in this regard may be limited.) The consumer protection organizations “Diagnose Funk” and “Kompetenzinitiative,” which fight against wireless radiation pollution, are here to help you, but also need your support.
To reduce your personal exposure, it is best to choose high-mass building materials; in the case of lightweight construction – for the entire building or just the roof structure – a layer of shielding material should be integrated. Shielding materials (paints, fabrics, screens), which have been in common use to date, do not show much of a difference in their shielding effectiveness in the frequency range from around 1 to 3 GHz compared to current sources of wireless radiation such as 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, DECT, etc. At higher frequencies above 20 GHz, mesh materials such as fabrics and screens are less effective, but high-mass building materials and continuous surface treatments such as paints are more effective.
If in doubt, have exposure levels verified by measurements; looking up the EMF Monitor at the German Federal Network Agency (or equivalent databases of cellular antennas in other countries) can already reveal important information.
It will be important to ensure that devices and systems with 5G wireless antennas (or other wireless technologies) are not installed inside buildings unless they can be disabled – at least at night, there should be wireless silence. Whenever possible, smart home applications should use hardwired solutions via network cables or cable bus systems. (In new construction, an abundance of data cables should be run.) Caution is also advised with all electrical appliances that come equipped with wireless functions: Either do without wireless functions or make sure that the wireless mode used only transmits infrequently and for short periods.
From a building biology perspective, it is generally recommended not only to focus on 5G, but also to consider other stress factors (e.g. ELF electric and magnetic fields, static electric and magnetic fields, formaldehyde, radioactivity, etc.) and to always take a holistic approach to problem solving, measurements, and mitigation. 

Summary

Many things regarding 5G are not yet known, but enough to use caution and to reduce one’s exposure to 5G radiation as much as possible. One thing is for sure, the introduction of 5G will lead to an increased personal exposure in various situations, at work, in public, or even at home. It is possible, as discussed above, that wireless radiation levels may drop compared to current levels. The how and where of exposure levels must be verified on a case-by-case basis, preferably with measurements.
The main goal of the building biology approach is to keep the sleep environment as free of wireless radiation exposure as possible, also including 5G. With regard to indoor wireless sources, main strategies include prudent avoidance, shutting off devices, or keeping a safe distance; with regard to outdoor wireless sources, shielding measures are in order.
How to measure 5G
Ideally, spectrum analyzers are used to measure 5G signals, which allow for the most detailed measurements. Depending on the situation, broadband RF meters can also be used. In the latter case, there will be certain measurement errors due to “crest factors” similar to LTE and even higher bandwidths, but they should all be manageable in the context of building biology assessments.
In any case, the measurement device must cover the frequencies used: Since many 5G applications will transmit around 3.4-3.7 GHz, spectrum analyzers or broadband RF meters must at least detect up to 4 GHz. For higher frequencies above 10 GHz, there are no broadband meters available as of yet and only very few building biology professionals own spectrum analyzers that can detect such high frequencies.
In the building biology community, experience with 5G measurements is still rare. Owing to the low traffic on 5G networks at this time, first measurements should be treated with caution. In the future, measuring 5G signals will be most likely rather difficult because of the great fluctuations in power levels, depending on who transmits how much data where. For example, emissions from base station antennas to mobile devices will at least partly form beams. How should one calculate maximum power levels based on random measurements? And when there is no data traffic, 5G emissions may even be shut off completely!? These aspects will present new challenges to 5G exposure measurements.
This is a translation of „5G aus baubiologischer Sicht

Author
Dr. Manfred Mierau is a biologist (Diplom-Biologe) and works as a Building Biology Professional in Aachen, Germany.

Translator
Katharina Gustavs is a Building Biology Professional in Victoria, Canada, who translated the Building Biology Online Course IBN.
info@katharinaconsulting.com
katharinaconsulting.com

martedì 28 aprile 2020

FDA 2020: analisi del report con giudizio finale!




Victor Leach of ORSAA: Critical review of the FDA 2020 Report

Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of Victor Leach himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.
***********************

READ ALSO BRHP OWN POST ON FDA 2020 REPORT:

US FDA 2020 REPORT ON CARCINOGENICITY OF RF-EMF CONTRADICTS SAFETY CLAIMS OF ICNIRP


***********************
Comment on the FDA 2020 Report
Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer’
by Victor Leach
The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of many consumer products, drugs, vaccines, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation etc. They have a responsibility to protect consumers from biotoxins, and hence this FDA review of wireless radiation.
As outlined below I believe this report is inadequate and biased in favour of industry. The following revelations that emerged from my analysis of this report in detail will explain why I have come to this conclusion.
Epidemiological Studies
Several criticisms can be leveled at this FDA 2020 Report. I will focus on the very poor quality of the assessment of causation within the epidemiological studies.
While epidemiological studies are very difficult to perform, and there are many flaws visible in studies, the FDA selection can only be described as biased. The word “bias” (plural or past tense) was the most commonly used word in the FDA statement of limitations. When a direct cause and effect relationship has not been established, there is an accepted tool for moving from a position of association to causation. This tool is the Bradford-Hill assessment, used by epidemiologists around the world. This tool appears to have been overlooked by the FDA assessors in this very limited selection of papers.
The FDA only reviewed cancer research, and within that, selected 69 papers with only 67 being experimental papers excluding the 2 commentary papers; see Table 1 below. There are a further 7 other review studies. Some of these selected references can only be described as “obscure” and some are not exclusively wireless studies, such as Balekouzou et al 2017Neupane et al 2017. If these studies are removed, there are 58 studies remaining, which can be categorised as shown in Table 1 below.
While the FDA focus was on cancer, there are many epidemiological studies that look at the totality of health related problems associated with wireless technology, which have been ignored in the FDA report. As is the case with other cancers, there are a number of underlining chronic health conditions that are associated with RF-EMF exposure that affect well-being. Table 1 shows that in the ORSAA database in addition to the 55 “cancer only” studies there are 66 epidemiological papers pertaining to other health issues associated with chronic exposure to RF-EMF. These papers fall into health categories such as:
  • Circadian Rhythm Changes;
  • Cardiovascular Effects;
  • Haematological Effects.
These studies are important for health and well-being and should not be dismissed when making an assessment of long-term health effects. To use an analogy, it’s important not only to look at the major cancers associated with tobacco smoking, namely lung cancer, but to also consider the long list of chronic effects that are side effects of consuming this biotoxin.
Table 1 compares the available papers selected by ARPANSA (TR-164) and the ORSSA database collection for the period between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2018 for mobile phones. TRS-164 is another example of a flawed assessment.
Table 1. Comparison of available Epidemiological studies on wireless technology.
The conclusion is very clear. The selection of papers in the FDA report is inadequate and unrepresentative of the available literature.
This recent review by Pareja-Peña F et,al  2020, of the 400 MHz – 3 GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic field influence on brain tumor induction is a much more balanced review.
In-vivo Animal Studies (Genotoxicity/Carcinogenicity and Tumorigenesis)
I have reviewed the in-vivo animal studies cited in the FDA report and compared these with the ORSAA database records, as follows:
The FDA report reviewed 37 studies and the comparison with the ORSAA database is in Table 2. The period used to select studies was from 2008 to 2018 (01/01/2008 to 31/12/2018) as stated in the FDA report.
Table 2: In-vivo animal studies in FDA report versus ORSAA database.
It is clear that the FDA report reviewed only about half of the available scientific papers.
Even with their poor quality review of 37 papers, the trend is clear: the in-vivo experimental animal studies show overwhelming genotoxicity resulting from RF exposures.
Once again, the non-cancer bioeffects are omitted in the FDA review. The bioeffects that need to be considered are listed below in their respective categories. Effects found in any of these categories have the potential for long-term chronic health implications. The glaring question is ’Why has the FDA ignored these subject areas?’:
  • Altered Electrophysiology
  • Altered Enzyme Activity
  • Altered Protein Levels
  • Audiological Effects
  • Autonomic Nervous System Effect
  • Cardiovascular Effects
  • Cell Membrane Effects
  • Cellular Signaling Effect
  • Central Nervous System Effects
  • Circulatory System Effects
  • Dermal Effects
  • Gene Expression Changes
  • Growth/Development Effects
  • Learning Effects
  • Mitochondrial Effects
  • Neurodegeneration
  • Neurological System Effects
  • Neurotransmitter Effect
  • Ocular Effects
  • Pregnancy Effects
  • Renal Effects
  • Salivary Gland Effects
  • Skeletal Effects
  • Sleep Effects
  • Thyroid Effects
CONCLUSION
While the FDA report purports to be a scientific assessment, it falls short in many respects. I conclude that this is just another political report trying to justify the rollout of further wireless technology. We are rolling out wireless 5G technologies without pre-market health testing and this is an unethical experiment on large population groups and the environment. This is not how a reputable risk management approach works. For example, when considering the health risks of ionising radiation at low doses (below 100 mSv), there are biological effects, but no proven health effects. In this case, the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP, apply risk management principles such As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This principle means that we do the following:
  • design equipment to minimise exposure to users;
  • administratively advise users on the safe use of devices;
  • use alternative methods of service delivery to limit exposure.
In Health and Safety management, the “Hierarchy of Controls” for dealing with risks are:
  1. elimination
  2. substitution
  3. engineering controls
  4. administrative controls
  5. personal protective equipment.
These philosophies of protection are completely absent from the rollout of wireless technology. This is even more important because man-made EMF, unlike low dose ionising radiation, is not found in our environment. Life on earth has not biologically evolved with this man-made pulsed EMF. ICNIRP statements that a short-term (6 minute) thermal guideline protects everyone are reckless and negligent.
The current research on existing wireless technologies tells us clearly that we should be taking a precautionary approach.

lunedì 27 aprile 2020

Repubblica si San Marino: alto tasso di morti per COVID-19


webinar: "Implications of COVID-19 for Public Health and the SDGs"  - 27th April 2020.



What is very interesting in this study and can be fully verified from other sources too, is the case of SAN MARINO in Italy. A place with only 30000+ inhabitants that has been the test bed for TIM and NOKIA and since the end of 2018 has full (99%) 5G coverage with MIMO antenas and both frequencies 3,5 GHz and 26GHz in operation. Today SAN MARINO has the highest rate of COVID-19 cases and the highest rate of COVID-19 deaths per 1000 people not only in Europe but Globaly.

Dr. Theodore P. Metsis

I checked that confirmed cases of San Marino vs Italian Provinces'.   San Marino = 1,73% on population vs 1,64% of worst Italian Province (Cremona).  
Please consider that the deployment in San Marino started end of 2018, so during last months 99% of coverage of 5G is operative in this State. In Italy the coverage of 5G is minimal with very few devices in operation,  during the end of 2019 beginning of 2020. 

Giorgio

Wifi 6 in USA


La Federal Communications Commission ha adottato oggi delle norme che rendono disponibili 1.200 megahertz di spettro nella banda 6 GHz (5.925–7.125 GHz) per l'uso senza licenza.




Queste nuove regole introdurranno il Wi-Fi 6, la prossima generazione di Wi-Fi, e avranno un ruolo importante nella crescita dell'Internet of Things. Il Wi-Fi 6 sarà due volte e mezzo più veloce rispetto allo standard attuale e offrirà prestazioni migliori per i consumatori americani. L'apertura della banda a 6 GHz per un utilizzo senza licenza aumenterà anche la quantità di spettro disponibile per il Wi-Fi di quasi un fattore cinque e contribuirà a migliorare la connettività rurale. "




"WASHINGTON, April 23, 2020—The Federal Communications Commission today adopted rules that make 1,200 megahertz of spectrum in the 6 GHz band (5.925–7.125 GHz) available for unlicensed use. These new rules will usher in Wi-Fi 6, the next generation of Wi-Fi, and play a major role in the growth of the Internet of Things. Wi-Fi 6 will be over two-and-a-half times faster than the current standard and will offer better performance for American consumers. Opening the 6 GHz band for unlicensed use will also increase the amount of spectrum available for Wi-Fi by nearly a factor of five and help improve rural connectivity."

domenica 26 aprile 2020

L'agenzia federale US Access Board riconosce la elettrosensibilità

L'agenzia federale US Access Board riconosce la elettrosensibilità

INel 2002, il Comitato per la conformità delle barriere architettoniche e dei trasporti, noto anche come Consiglio di accesso degli Stati Uniti, ha pubblicato nuove linee guida sull'accessibilità per le strutture ricreative coperte dall'American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Individui con MCS  e elettrosensibilità hanno presentato un numero considerevole di commenti scritti e hanno partecipato alle riunioni di informazione del pubblico sul progetto di norma finale. Hanno riferito che i prodotti chimici utilizzati nelle strutture ricreative, come il cloro usato nelle piscine e nelle spa, e i pesticidi e i fertilizzanti sintetici utilizzati nei campi da golf, sono barriere che impediscono loro di accedere a tali strutture. Hanno chiesto al consiglio di amministrazione di includere disposizioni nella norma finale per rendere accessibili loro le strutture ricreative.

Il Board riconosce che MCS e sensibilità elettromagnetiche possono essere considerate disabilità ai sensi dell'ADA se compromettono così gravemente le funzioni neurologiche, respiratorie o di altro tipo di un individuo da limitare sostanzialmente una o più delle principali attività di vita dell'individuo. Il consiglio di amministrazione intende esaminare attentamente le esigenze di questa popolazione e intraprendere attività che affrontano le questioni dell'accessibilità per queste persone.




U.S. Access Board recognized electromagnetic sensitivity as real and a potential disability in 2002

Advancing full access and inclusion for all”
In 2002, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, also known as the United States Access Board, issued new accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Access Board is an independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards. Founded in 1973…”
During the process of developing these guidelines, the Board held public hearings, and it received “substantial” comment from those who are electromagnetically sensitive. In its final rule, the Access Board stated:
  • The Board recognizes electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered a disability under the ADA if they so severely impair neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.
  • The Board planned to develop technical assistance materials on best practices to accommodate the electromagnetically sensitive.
  • The Board planned to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality which would develop an action plan for reducing electromagnetic fields in the built environment.
Here is the statement from the Final Rule, published in the Federal Register, September 3, 2002:

General Issues

Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Electromagnetic Sensitivities

Individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities submitted a substantial number of written comments and attended the public information meetings on the draft final rule. They reported that chemicals used in recreation facilities, such as chlorine used in swimming pools and spas, and pesticides and synthetic fertilizers used on golf courses, are barriers that deny them access to those facilities. They requested the Board to include provisions in the final rule to make recreation facilities accessible for them.
The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals.
The Board plans to develop technical assistance materials on best practices for accommodating individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities. The Board also plans to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality. In this project, the Board will bring together building owners, architects, building product manufacturers, model code and standard-setting organizations, individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities, and other individuals. This group will examine building design and construction issues that affect the indoor environment, and develop an action plan that can be used to reduce the level of chemicals and electromagnetic fields in the built environment.
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 170 /Tuesday, September 3, 2002 /Rules and Regulations
Here is the PDF of the final rule
The original link (no longer available) was http://www.access-board.gov/recreation/final.htm