Starlink anyone got it ?

[MBSC]

From what I understand the Starlink dish needs a a pretty large bit of unobstructed sky to get a good signal. Spots in a forested mountain valley fo example might be difficult. Power consumption is also something I would look into with mobile and off-grid (?) use in mind. Especially if as you described you need to be online a lot.

[Maxmars]

Direct and excessive EM and RF radiation exposure affects biological cell processes.  It always has, always will.

Most of this research seems to be focused on those results of "exposure" without specifying just how long, where, and how much exposure is causing the damage.  Also, generalized alarms like this are usually the product of 'backdoor' activism... the most insidious kind.

I was worried for a long time about the claims of antagonists to telecommunications tech.  For one thing the technology developers already know that opening line about EM/RF radiation exposure ... and two, the "promoters" of it couldn't give a rats' ass about trifles such as 'safety' (that's stuff's only for marketing.)

Talking about such emissions and naming Starlink specifically is rather disingenuous... considering how long we all have been exposed to man-made RF/EM over the last 100 years... It's like belaboring the health hazards of smoking cigarettes but mentioning only one brand.

When a single commercial entity is targeted ... my first suspicion is the use of "backdoor activism" where someone has an agenda against that particular business (or its owner.)

[Kenzo]

Direct and excessive EM and RF radiation exposure affects biological cell processes.  It always has, always will.

Most of this research seems to be focused on those results of "exposure" without specifying just how long, where, and how much exposure is causing the damage.  Also, generalized alarms like this are usually the product of 'backdoor' activism... the most insidious kind.

I was worried for a long time about the claims of antagonists to telecommunications tech.  For one thing the technology developers already know that opening line about EM/RF radiation exposure ... and two, the "promoters" of it couldn't give a rats' ass about trifles such as 'safety' (that's stuff's only for marketing.)

Talking about such emissions and naming Starlink specifically is rather disingenuous... considering how long we all have been exposed to man-made RF/EM over the last 100 years... It's like belaboring the health hazards of smoking cigarettes but mentioning only one brand.

When a single commercial entity is targeted ... my first suspicion is the use of "backdoor activism" where someone has an agenda against that particular business (or its owner.)

I dont understand your comments about this .

The harmful health effects of rf/ emf has been known since the 50s / 60s when the Russians noticed it . That`s long time .

People die every year because emf, and many suffer ....hardly a nothingburger thing.

[Ravenwatcher]

@MBSC

I did't want to sound dumb but I was wondering how it worked Satellites are in orbit that means they are orbiting the Earth so how does it work when they are on the other side of the Earth , Then I thought well people have Dish TV and always have a signal but figured they got or use more then one satellite . But you can actuality see the line of Star link satellites go over head sometimes .

[Maxmars]

I dont understand your comments about this .

The harmful health effects of rf/ emf has been known since the 50s / 60s when the Russians noticed it . That`s long time .

People die every year because emf, and many suffer ....hardly a nothingburger thing.

I mean all the research I have personally seen (there could be more that I haven't) demonstrates the damage RF/EM causes by focusing the energy on the living tissue over extended periods, with dense and continuous exposure.  That's not what anyone (generally speaking) is actually experiencing in reality.

The purposefully focused exposure in the research activities is continued, until some measurable effect manifests... and then blanket proclamations are made about the danger to people as if it were "any" exposure that causes the danger.  It's as if they have an agenda.... to 'prove' danger, rather than gather data.

People do and will die every year of exposure to many things... RF/EM included.  Certainly, we should limit our exposure to those things.  But like all reality, that's not the whole story.

I'm not denying the observation, only the completeness of our understanding.

---

@MBSC

I did't want to sound dumb but I was wondering how it worked Satellites are in orbit that means they are orbiting the Earth so how does it work when they are on the other side of the Earth , Then I thought well people have Dish TV and always have a signal but figured they got or use more then one satellite . But you can actuality see the line of Star link satellites go over head sometimes .

It's not just "a satellite" is a ring of satellites orbiting the earth like a network of interconnected machines.  In theory you could be able to receive a signal from any of them, were it not for the fact that the "business operation" of it all restricts your equipment's hardware to single one (or a limited subset.)   Since they are all interconnected it's functionally like having a giant donut-shaped satellite around the earth.

The loss of a single satellite in the network should not be terribly crippling.  And I don't know actually how many thousands of satellites there are...  but you are never on the "other side of the earth" from the 'whole' network... only from a specific number of satellites within the network.

Starlink has the unique position of being able to launch its own satellites, en masse.  So, it's different from the other providers, for whom satellite deployment is a gigantic deal... and they basically can only do it one at a time... limiting their coverage to geosynchronous stationing.

[Kenzo]

I mean all the research I have personally seen (there could be more that I haven't) demonstrates the damage RF/EM causes by focusing the energy on the living tissue over extended periods, with dense and continuous exposure.  That's not what anyone (generally speaking) is actually experiencing in reality.

The purposefully focused exposure in the research activities is continued, until some measurable effect manifests... and then blanket proclamations are made about the danger to people as if it were "any" exposure that causes the danger.  It's as if they have an agenda.... to 'prove' danger, rather than gather data.

People do and will die every year of exposure to many things... RF/EM included.  Certainly, we should limit our exposure to those things.  But like all reality, that's not the whole story.

I'm not denying the observation, only the completeness of our understanding.

I dont think you understand it . We are past the time when they had to focusing the energy,  that was in 80s/90s .....now it`s all auto focused in urban environment where the technology is everywhere. Sure ,anyone can still focuse the energy more by holding phone to ear/head ....but generally the environment is heavely saturated by rf/emf  microwaves now days....expect in countryside , like here where i am .

It wont have to be any thermal effects either.  When people are de facto living 356 in environment that is highly saturated by microwaves , some get leukemia, some brain cancer etc...

In the 50/60s Russians used microwaves against US embassy in Moscow.......so called " Moscow signal " .

The technology is potentially very harmfull , just the degree of how much and who varies.....but i never seen people who would say they feel in beforehand how their cells in body turn to cancerous , when they do find out it, the reason causing might have been there much earlyer, years ...you can not feel the changes of cells when it starts first .


RADIATION DANGERS


EMF Scientific Research – Important Studies

[Blaine91555]

@MBSC

I did't want to sound dumb but I was wondering how it worked Satellites are in orbit that means they are orbiting the Earth so how does it work when they are on the other side of the Earth , Then I thought well people have Dish TV and always have a signal but figured they got or use more then one satellite . But you can actuality see the line of Star link satellites go over head sometimes .

As of March 2024, there are 5,504 Starlink satellites in orbit, of which 5,442 are operational,
LINK

It looks like 40,000+ is the target number, so I guess it will work anywhere on the planet soon.

I'm wondering how much impact solar storms will have and how many they knock offline? There is supposed to be a powerful one heading our way today and tomorrow. Too many clouds to see them here this time.

[Maxmars]

Kenzo

I am not arguing against the idea that modern humans have been living in a world saturated by energetic signals and constant exposure to whatever our technology has brought along with it.  I am also not refuting that research has confirmed that it 'could' (not necessarily 'does') affect life-processes.  

Perhaps the robust nature of our physical bodies makes us fail to notice the effects... and that perspective of "until its' too late" is universal to many things other than, and beyond technological "energy pollution."

I applaud the investigation; I don't applaud "the sky is falling" marketing.  The biggest proponents of this alarm all have something to sell... that reduces my confidence in what they say.  

I am aware that I could be very wrong about the immediateness of the threat.  And I know that eliminating the technology is never going to be casually accepted without extraordinarily compelling evidence... Evidence that doesn't acquiesce to big commerce by forcing words like "might cause" and "has been shown in lab studies."   

I would like, at least, some evidentiary weight (not based on 'theoretical outcomes') to the assertion that using it is self-destructive.

But enough off-topic for me... I apologize to the thread author.  Kenzo, maybe you should start a thread on this topic (just a thought)

[pianopraze]

Will probably get when I go back to live in the Philippines. 

Heard it’s available there now.

[montana]

I have a Starlink setup that I take along in my rv. I pay a little more per month for the rv service, but the plus side is that service can be paused if I'm not using it for a month or two. 

Starlink works great everywhere I have been, but yes, it needs a clear spot. The antenna has a steerable phased array apparently. Once it finds itself it seldom moves. It is also heated to melt any snow accumulation. Speed does reduce with heavy clouds, but is still usable unlike Dish TV.

Overall I am really happy with it. The only real downer is the twisted pair antenna cable has easily broken wires. However, ethernet adapters are available. Just get some and some heavy cat6 and you're good to go.