(03-24-2024, 01:44 PM)Kenzo Wrote: 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.
(03-24-2024, 01:58 PM)Ravenwatcher Wrote: @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.
