[Podgajski]

> It is estimated at 0.000000294 watts per square meter.

Please show math or reference.

> That amount of energy is much smaller than the 1000 watts per square meter of terahertz radiation, sunlight, that would hit you when stand outside in your swimming trunks on a bright cloudless summers day.

Sunlight is not polarized, radiation, millimeter wave radiation from stink is polarized radiation. Big difference. Also, we did not evolve with anthropomorphic millimeter wave radiation yet. We evolved with the sun. Another big difference.

> If you climb on the roof of a building and stand ten feet from a cellphone base station antenna there might be a few watts per square meter hitting your body.

Do I have to show you the FCC references that say this is dangerous? Even more so with 5G cell towers?

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-fr...

[controversial97]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quick-analysis-starlink-link-...

I don't think that polarization makes any practical difference to how hazardous non-ionizing radiation is. Please show a reference to back up your claim.

How do you think polarization makes any difference if a ten-millionth of a watt at 12GHz hits your skin?

In the example of standing ten feet from a cellphone base station, I point to IEEE C95.1-2019 which specifies a maximum of 2watts per square meter (below 6GHz) which does not worry me at all.

Here is another figure for you: The total power of the cosmic background radiation across 1 to 200GHz or so is 0.000003 watts per square meter

At the earths surface, the total power of the cosmic background radiation is higher than the power level of the starlink downlinks!

http://bostonastronomy.net/Power.html

[ksaj]

Correct. By definition, polarized waves of any kind are less "potent" since their contact surface is greatly diminished. It's the difference between the line of radius*2 and a filled circle, the radius squared times pi. Big difference, and easily observable:

Lasing is the best example of demonstrating why this is: Polarized light has to be significantly stronger to pass through the partial mirror than the regular light that said mirror blocks when generating laser. The non-polarized light keeps bouncing between the full mirror and the partial mirror until it is strong enough to pass through the partial mirror. The constant reflection eventually polarizes all the light, but that should be obvious just by visualization. Gas lasers work differently, which is why they don't polarize.

I think OP is trolling, because he's expecting lessons on absolutely everything about how the world works around him in order to be convinced that his initial claim is so very wrong.

[Podgajski]

You actually just showed that turning unpolarized light into polarized light makes it more powerful by turning it into a laser. And you think I’m trolling?

Just like a laser, The beam from the satellite is concentrated and directed at an area that’s only 15 mi.². If it was spread out like the suns rays were, there would not be enough concentrated power for the stink satellite to pick up the signal. So the EMS from the satellite are acting just like a, The beam from the satellite is concentrated and directed at a area that’s only 15 mi.². If it was spread out like the suns rays were, there would not be enough concentrated power for the starlink satellite to pick up the signal. So the EMS from the satellite are acting just like a powerful laser. What do you think of phased array antenna does? It focuses the energy from the satellite into a single beam, you know, just like a laser!

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b02029

Read this paper I’ll post the link again. This explains the difference between polarize and unpolarized EMF.

https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fie....

[ksaj]

Read my comment that I made fleshing this out. You are very wrong. Well, you're right that laser is stronger than "regular" light, but your reasoning is totally wrong. And polarization has absolutely nothing to do with it. You'd be better off saying it's a side effect that Starlink takes advantage of, because it's easier to recognize a polarized signal than one that isn't (and that actually IS the reason, but you're not ready for that level yet).

Light polarized one way is exactly the same strength as light that isn't polarized, and covers less area, so its apparent strength is considerably less. Your reasoning about why laser is so bright is muddling things up, because you don't understand what makes signals stronger or weaker when dealing with photons and other things at more quantum scales.

We don't want to get into quantum discussions here, because you'll just get whackier in your claims, so just go read that comment and move on, because I've explained it about as clear as it can be to someone who is not trolling or begging for attention.

[Podgajski]

You could’ve looked it up yourself, you would learn more if you did.

And as I said, before natural radiation is different from anthropological EMF radiation. It’s post and it’s polarized. You can’t compare it to anything natural.

While natural unpolarised EMF/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914#:~:text=While%20na....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8562392/

Thus, in addition to polarization and coherence, the existence of ELFs is a common feature of almost all human-made EMFs. The present study reviews the DNA damage and related effects induced by human-made EMFs. The ion forced-oscillation mechanism for irregular gating of voltage-gated ion channels on cell membranes by polarized/coherent EMFs is extensively described. Dysfunction of ion channels disrupts intracellular ionic concentrations, which determine the cell's electrochemical balance and homeostasis. The present study shows how this can result in DNA damage through reactive oxygen species/free radical overproduction.

[ksaj]

Light reflecting off a lake is polarized. That's why polarized filters remove the glare in lake photos, etc.

All reflected light is polarized (or at least partly polarized, since some surfaces are quite rough, and except when reflected by a mirror, although the rough surface part still applies). It's why we can see Haidinger's Brush on a clear sunny day.

[Podgajski]

All right, this is proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Light coming off of a lake is not polarized. That’s why we wear polarizing glasses to get rid of the glare. They take the unpolarized light and polarize it by removing everything but the horizontal rays. So they’re doing two things they were reducing the amount of light you’re getting and they’re also polarizing the light reducing glare.

https://www.visionease.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SunRxT...

Next, Why don’t you read this paper and then tell me if they’re the same. People that are smarter than both of us put together, are talking about these things in a scientific way, not in a way that they think will win an argument.

Besides, we evolved with sunlight, and we did not evolve with man-made EMF. I’m not saying I know this matters, but I’m saying you can’t compare them and say they’re the same.

https://noxtak.com/natural-vs-artificial-electromagnetic-fie....

[Aloisius]

> They take the unpolarized light and polarize it by removing everything but the horizontal rays.

Those horizontal rays are polarized light. That's why it's "horizontal."

Unpolarized light is really just randomly polarized light - the polarization changes moment to moment randomly. When light strikes a non-metallic reflective surface at around 56° (Brewster's angle), the light components which are polarized perpendicular to the surface get scattered or absorbed, while those polarized parallel to the surface get reflected, so light reflecting at an angle off of water is linearly polarized in a horizontal direction.

[Podgajski]

But not all the sons rays are coming at the same direction they’re scattered from thousands of different angles. If they came off of the sun, as all polarized, we’d all be dead, burned like a laser, a laser is polarized light.

[ksaj]

You really need to remove the tinfoil hat. It's even affecting your ability to read.

When I mentioned polarization of laser, you ignored everything except one phrase. I said, specifically (but I'll be more specific this time), that some lasers use a mirror and a partial mirror, and once the light transmitted into it is amplified enough that it can get through the partial mirror, you get a laser beam. You stupidly took that to mean that is proof that polarized light is obviously then stronger.

But that's not correct. The AMPLIFICATION, literally the A in the word lAser, is what makes it strong enough to get through the partial mirror. Amplified light is stronger. Nothing to do with polarization. It is polarized because of reflecting back and forth between the mirror and the partial mirror. Nothing more. That's a side effect of the amplification method. The single-direction amplification means all that escapes is polarized to that one direction. This is super basic. Ruby lasers are pretty typical, and LED lasers mimic them. Literally a partially shiny piece of see-through rock.

I mentioned, and you ignored, in that same comment that gas lasers use a completely different method, and as a result, produce non-polarized laser. I actually own a few lasers (so it's wild you think you are schooling me). One that I like most is Helium Neon. Fully a gas laser. Fully not polarized. And a hell of a lot stronger than your fancy polarized laser pointer.

It's easier to make laser with the mirror/partial mirror pair, and LED that mimics that, but the strength has absolutely nothing to do with the polarization. Period.

Please end the word games. You keep bopping between whether it's the satellites or the terminals that are causing your fake illness. And you're cherry picking phrases just to keep the thread going. It's neither energy source. We all know that, and so do you.

Cut it out. This is a grown up forum.

[Podgajski]

And I want to add that it may not worry you, but genetics seems to play a role in electromagnetic hyper sensitivity.

It may have a little effect on you, unless there’s a much higher increase in power, but other people may be more sensitive. It’s like you saying I should not be worried about peanuts when I obviously have a peanut allergy and you don’t.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/

[ksaj]

It's like saying you should not be worried about your peanut allergy if the peanuts are 10km away. Your exposure is not at a level that your body will react negatively to it.

[Podgajski]

No, you’re saying that, I’m not saying that you’re saying that. I am saying that if I can pick up a cell signal or if I could pick up a satellite beam from a star satellite then it’s like having a peanut in my mouth.

[ksaj]

Well, you'll be safe at either the North or South Pole, then. The only places on the planet that don't have Starlink flying over (yet).

[ksaj]

How about this one:

"This analysis demonstrates that the SpaceX CP terminal is not a radiation hazard because the terminal does not exceed the MPE limit of 1 mW/cm2 averaged over a thirty-minute period."

https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-20190211-00151/1616679

[Podgajski]

I’m not talking about the terminal, I’m talking about the satellite that’s acting as a cell tower.

[ksaj]

Then, just like the cell tower examples people have already given you, proximity is very much a differentiator between safe and not safe. We're really far away from those satellites. And people have already shown how low the radiation from those satellites actually is by the time it reaches you.

It is measured in nanowatts.

EDIT: Also, in another comment that I called out (later in this very thread), you said the exact opposite. What part are you talking about? Make up your mind. This thread has thoroughly disproven your concerns for every part of the signal chain involved, and yet you keep flipping what part you are talking about, disregarding that all parts have been discussed now.

I think you are trolling. Wrap yourself in tinfoil and move on.

[Podgajski]

Actually, I’m measuring it volts per micro. But just because it’s a microwave doesn’t mean it does not have non-thermal effects. This is the question with EHS. And this is what’s being studied, the non-thermal biological effects.

And if the power of the satellite is so low, how can it carry so much data. That’s what you’re not understanding. if it can’t reach the dish it can’t reach me. Those aren’t the waves I’m talking about. As I showed earlier the broadcast cone for the satellite is 15 m² in a hexagon.

[avidiax]

15 nanowatts received at the dish.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-power-does-a-Starlink-satelli...

[Podgajski]

Yes that’s at the dish but I’m wondering the 15 miles around the dish which I have confirmed from someone who is knowledged on the subject that it does transmit that same power over 15 mi.². So essentially it’s exposing me to five bars of 5G millimeter wave radiation over 15 mi.² does that sound right?

[ksaj]

Make up your mind. You keep saying one thing, then the other. People have proven over and over again that the radiation from the satellites is too low to be a danger to you at this distance, and the same goes for the terminals, which are what you are on about this time. Literally all points have been discussed in this thread. None of it is risky unless you are literally sleeping on the antennae.

The risk from ALL parts of the communication is very, very low. How many times and ways do you need to be shown this?

You even ignored my initial comment hours ago about old radio towers. Those were measured in megawatts. Modern digital delivery doesn't need nearly the bandwidth, which is why it is safer than what you are worrying about. Even old children's walkie talkies expose you to more radiation.

At a distance, analog fades out and the sound or image suffers. Digital is crystal clear right down until you can't differentiate the digital signal from the noise anymore. No noise is added because it is so easy to ensure a correct digital signal, versus analog that has no error correction and audibly/visually suffers from static and other interference from distance.

You're trying very hard to keep this thread going, but it's proven over and over again here that your worries are unfounded.

[Podgajski]

In my original question I directly asked “ I’m trying to understand EMF exposure from Starlink satellites. Am I right to assume that anyone within the 15 mile cell area would be exposed to EMFs if someone is using a Starlink receiver?”

I’m not changing anything you are misunderstanding. The phased beam form is directed in area That’s an area of 15 mi.². And a hexagon. I showed you the map and I showed you the link.

You keep saying it’s too weak but two weak compared to what.? there are zero study showing at safety for people with different genetics.

I don’t care what measurement term you use I care about the effect. It’s like saying a drop of cyanide is only a drop.

I’m not trying to keep the thread going. Your answers are nonsensical or you’re just misunderstanding what I’m pointing out. These are being discussed constantly in scientific circles and they’re not answered. But you will come here with, some either knowledge of physics or some propaganda given by cell phone companies and think you know everything and that’s frustrating.

I’m not even saying that I know 100% that these things affect me but your comparisons are illogical. And that’s why I’m keeping going .

[ksaj]

Do a study on your special DNA to see why it is so different than normal DNA from everything that has DNA. That's the only way to get to the end of this, apparently.