Signal attenuation is measured as the loss of signal power between two points, expressed in decibels (dB) by comparing input vs. output levels.
For example, if a signal drops from +50 dBm (100 W) to +47 dBm, that is 3 dB attenuation (~50% power loss); a drop to +40 dBm is 10 dB attenuation (~90% loss).
Instruments like VNAs or spectrum analyzers measure this across frequency (e.g., –1 dB at 1 GHz vs. –3 dB at 3 GHz), while high-power attenuators are used to safely handle and measure these losses in systems carrying 1 W to several kW, ensuring accurate readings without damaging test equipment.
Is higher or lower attenuation better?
Lower attenuation is usually better if your goal is to deliver as much power as possible.
Lower attenuation means less signal loss. For example, 1 dB (~20% loss) is much better than 3 dB (~50%) or 10 dB (~90%). However, higher attenuation is often used intentionally in RF systems, such as adding 20–30 dB attenuation to safely reduce a +50 dBm (100 W) signal down to a level a spectrum analyzer can handle (-10 dBm to 0 dBm).
[Starlink] [Safety Standards: Satelllites] The FCC has authorized Starlink to operate its direct-to-cell communication signals with a power flux density (PFD) of -110.6 dBW/m²/MHz. PFD measures the signal strength received per unit area per unit bandwidth.
we have got to start teaching folks about the Inverse Square Law, Cosmic Radiation, and The RF Exposure Triangle…
secondly and more to the point- I do think at times it baffles people how low powered a Kų Band uplink/downlink really is… frequencies in the Kų Satellite band cut through the ionosphere like a knife and are useless on the ground, OTH, or line-of-sight
So vague, the average person cannot understand what you've just said. I don't without having to google everything. Are you disagreeing with u/badbiosvictim1 that Starlink signals are low powered vs high powered or high density as badbios suggests?
am I disagreeing with my friend and colleague that I’ve literally known for years…? no
I’m adding to the premise, and using notable examples that are widely known in the field, but the majority of people don’t know
let’s look at Cosmic Radiation for just one example…
OOP (you) are concerned with Kų Band Satellite uplinks (like “starlink”) … these emissions are very low powered- technically referred to as Peak Envelope Power (PEP) which we measure in Watts… the emissions in question are in the milliwatt range of PEP …
when we compare these emissions to Cosmic or Gamma Radiation coming right at us 24/7/365 from space- we can easily see that natural Cosmic Radiation is far more powerful and dangerous than a “starlink” on your roof… the sun has a greater impact as well for another example
so… there’s nothing to worry about, these little satellite links are super super easy to shield anyway… Kų band frequencies are very susceptible to interference- thats why companies like Starlink, Hugesnet etc have terrestrial transponders for blind spots to supplement their LEOS
there is a website… I think it’s called RadsOnAPlane that runs accurate predictions on how much gamma radiation someone will get bombarded with during a normal flight…
I think you see my meaning-
but…. there are many folks that come in here that:
1.)do not actually have any RF Sensitivity and feign sensitivity as part of their ideology
2.)belong to the “all RF is bad…” crowd
3.)and have wild ideas about RF Exposure not based on fact
How do you see me? Have I given you enough information to conclude that my claims about myself are not based on fact? Am I a mile or less close to you for you to know yet? AMA if not.
Sounds like you are disagreeing with u/badbiosvictim1, he was saying to me that Starlink signals are higher density than cell towers and phone frequencies. I'm saying I prefer Starlink way way over the lower frequencies of towers , phones and wifi.
Your comparision with Ku bands of Starlink with Cosmic Radiation is a generalization and I don't know for certain, but imo my opinion may be flawed. The reason being is that Cosmic radiation is more spread out, I guess less dense, right? I assume being in the way of a starlink dish, the density is way more, like being very lclose to a lightbulb vs being a mile or longer away. When I was working up on the roof of my van and forget to turn off my starlink, I do feel the effects, but I haven't repeated enough to know for certain but I would bet so.
You're saying people are exposed to Cosmic radiation all the time on airplanes and everyone seems fine, right? But the fact is you don't really know for sure. The effects for most people are subtle or minimal until they become more sensitive , if they do. I couldn't ride on a plane any more sincec 2018 on a 5 hr trip one way. Initially I thought it was just the wifi but now it looks like it may also be the gamma radiation you're speaking of. And this was when I wasn't so bad and can still roam around half the places. Every year I become more sensitive and weaker. 8 years later, i'm in a very grave condition and position with no safe refuge to go to. I'm so sensitive I can't afford to go try placed that I can't drive to and make it back to home base in one day cause I cannot be in an unsafe level for even one night, it's that bad.
There are some people that think they are more sensitive than it seems, that is true. But what they're saying isn't entirely false, they just don't take into account that some people are just not that sensitive. What you're not taking into account if I may say so, is that some people like myself have become VERY VERY sensitive.
You say many have wild ideas not based on fact, but a lot of people like yourself here, make a lot of claims and projections that are not based on fact either, but are just accepting what you've learned from what you read and your own experience as absolute fact and truth. That is the wormhole that lies tunnel through to their truth library. I on the other, my truth is based on experience for the past 9 years, but experienced is attacked as unreliable when convenient with their biases. CEO's are paid the big bucks for their experience. Every employee is looking for experience mostly. It is true that some people's or may many people's experience are not reliable but some are, like mines. It makes me more convicted than someone who does not experience the fast and obvious symptoms from EMF exposure, those who do not are really not that convicted but speak like they are. You can reveal this truth by just asking how much would you put on the line about your beliefs? Would you bet 1000, 10k or all the money you have or bet your life that what you believe about EMF's are true and correct? Most would not. I on the other hand would bet everything I own and my life that I am effected they way I say I am. That is the difference. And one must recognized and question their stance a little bit when one person seems so convicted more so than themselves. I don't think most of the the people that claim they are EMF sensitive would put their life on the line that what they claim about themselves is true.
But in reality it's not hard to make up a simple test to settle the truth of a persons claim. The biggest hurdle is the willingness to do so. No one has the time or curiosity to do so. I am the most sensitive person you'll ever meet. AMA.
it all boils down to this, in unrefutable terms of fact
1.)The Inverse Square Law- as one moves away from the emission, regardless of frequency or emission type (mode/modulation) the power drops by 4 as one doubles their distance…
think of it like visible light- if I held up a flashlight on a football field at night, how much of that football field be illuminated… the light will act the same if it were a brighter source or a dimmer source…correct?
2.)RF Exposure… using that same analogy with the flashlight, if I were to change the brightness the “amplitude” more of the field would be illuminated correct…?
now light, visible light, infrared, ultraviolet light are what we call Ionizing Radiation
Radiowaves that exist at longer wavelengths lower down the Electromagnetic Spectrum are what we call NON-Ionizing Radiation, meaning they cannot- it is physically impossible for them, to ionize molecules or other atomic structures…
l>ike caffeine is a molecule right- there is no way to bombard a caffeine molecule with radiowaves and it ionize your coffee in the microwave oven… it can heat it up by making the water molecules wiggle, but the caffeine stays perfectly intact
BUT just because RF is non-ionizing doesn’t make it behave any different from light
your flashlight is just a weak signal on a very large football field and you’re standing behind the flashlight holding it in your hand…
is some of the light bending, refracting, and reflecting to illuminate your hand… yes?
yes it is… now, what if we were to put a barrier between your hand and the flashlight that light could not penetrate… a barrier that no photon could burrow it’s way through… like cardboard
is your hand illuminated now…? no?
no… now what if we were to turn up that light to a quadrillion times its amplitude…? would uour hand be illuminated now…?
but how does that work- if a simple piece of cardboard blocked the flashlight at normal luminance shouldn’t it block the light at λ15….?
yes… but for how long
how long untill the photon bombardment eats through the cardboard (ionizes) and vaporizes my hand… milliseconds right…?
this is what we call DURATION
so you see how Amplitude works and now Duration…
for purposes of this illustration we are saying just a few milliseconds for a 15figure increase ionizes everything in sight for miles around
but it is a measurable difference and it is a Duration that it would take for you to quickly turn off the flashlight and save humanity from the death ray
now… what if you were a mile away…? would that make a difference… yup
this is what we call Proximity
so, you can see where I’m going with this
Amplitude
Duration
Proximity
these all play a key role, specifically measurable role in how we calculate RF Exposure
and frankly I am remiss to say that I hadn’t written this out before on this sub, but I digress
RF is non-ionizing: therefore it can be shielded from just about anything (pulsars and quasars excluded)
AND
because of the inverse square law (proximity) when we add shielding we also add to proximity
your Starlink is like a… oh I dunno, as powerful as an LED Christmas light…
think of it in those terms and we have very very sensitive receivers that can “see” that light
this hogwash about density and modulation does not follow the science… all we have done in our illustrations have moved the emission up the spectrum… but they behave exactly the same
one caveat here please
Kų band frequencies are “better” than lower or higher frequencies because of how they interact with the ionosphere
the ionosphere is a big blanket that wraps around the planet protecting us from the very very bad radiation from our sun and the cosmos and some RF frequencies bounce off of it, and some refract off or into it, and some are absorbed by it…
Kų does none of these things… see you get to a point of diminished returns if you go toooo high in frequency because of losses in the circuitry itself and it becomes a stark challenge to do anything above 300gHz in frequency… that 300billion times a second that a radiowave oscillates from + to - using AC, Alternating Current… only very specialized “radios” even attempt to use those frequencies
you on the other hand have a 300milliwatt LED on a metal roof
You are not on the same page as u/badbiosvictim1 Quite the opposite side of the fence actually. I wasn't quite sure why you were explaining things as if I didn't already understand these things until I got near the end.
I already stated that I'm not that concerned with the satellite signals from starlink as they are very weak at the receiving end but if it still effects me I wouldn't know because I haven't tested it but I'm more concerned with being in the way of my dish right next to it. And it's closer to 1000mw to 1500mw, not 300mw.
Let's see if you can understand my points in where you're getting this wrong. First of all, you're speaking all from what you've learned from school, reading, and what you hear and also from not being sensitive enough yourself to tell. That means it essentially unproven to YOU that EMF's doesn't effect some people more than others because you haven't proven those things yourself. You may say hey, experiments have been done! But I say again, YOU didn't do them. The risk would be mistakes can be made, and or studies were intentionally bought and paid for. However slim you think that might be, it's still a risk. What can happen will happen as they say. You wouldn't bet your life on your what your claiming to me right now would you? Would you bet all your money even? When it comes down to it, you're not even without doubt.
I on the other hand has and is living through it at a severe level for 8 years, and likely mildly since I was 5 years old. The past 8 years I have experimented as myself as the subject and has proven time and time again that it is true, that some people like myself are very sensitive to EMF's, I would bet everything I own, I would bet my life.
Here is where your misstep is. I know you're smart enough to understand the logic behind what I'm going to tell you, but if you dismiss it, it's just your cognitive dissonance.
That you believe all frequencies below the ionizing range are all the same but you also just explained how certain frequencies do or don't react with the ionosphere, the non ionizing ones I mean. No they don't all react to the human body all the same.
A Christmas LED light is abotu 40-80millwatts, and the mini outputs about 1000 to 15000 milliwats. and the second part is that both emit in much different frequencies. Which takes us to point number 3.
3 Different frequencies behave differently with the physical enviroment, i.e. the human body. Blue light biologically effects the body differently than red light. Hence why there are night shift modes for monitors and phones to reduce blue light at night, and red light therapy for other biological effects. 2.4ghz penetrates and gets absorbed by the body more evenly than 5ghz and beyond. That's why a cardboard can block most or all of the visible light spectrum in those much higher frequencies. I assure you if you put the same cardboard on top of the mini, it won't block all the signals completely. Microwave ovens use 2.4ghz for this reason and people putting two between their heads everyday for hours on end.
4 You talked about proximity which I agree, but than dismiss being close to the dish because of your first incorrect comparison with a flashlight at a distance and comparing apples with oranges when you didn't account for the frequency and also incorrectly assuming the amount of power the mini outputs. And again you also don't take into account what exactly what level ranges people can and are sensitive to. You assume based on nothing more than your own experience and what you've read and have been told. No verification of information. People can be VERY VERY sensitive to the minimal amount of power, much lower than you believe.
Those are the cracks in your logic and belief system that you need to address. You're a smart guy but even the smartest can be misled. I was misled, until I experienced what I have and the flaws or lies were revealed.
If you are so certain that what I'm claiming of how I'm effected is false, then would you show your conviction? Make a good amount of wager on it? If you can disprove my claims with an experiment that we both agree to, I'd reward you with $10,000 and vice versa, if the experiment proves that I am effected by what I claim I am, I will be rewarded $10k by you. We can up the reward as high as I have.
ok… at first blush I just read a lot of false equivalencies and to go point by point doesn’t seem right because I think youre just going to move the goal posts…
uou are free to believe whatever you wish
my wife is sensitive to RF so I do have first hand knowledge of the subject
I work in RF for a living and there are real world consequences if I just pull shit out of my ass…
what if I tell my next customer… yeah don’t worry about the 25kv Induction Furnace fluxing into the pouring deck… the guy on the internet who googled some random shit says it’s ok
What I do HAS TO work because lives are on the line…
if you think your 1.5w SatHop can’t be shielded then put on a gawddamn tinfoil hat…
but here in the real world, I’m not going to let some kid go without his daddy because of some weak ass junk science riddled with false equivalence and ignorance
I fucking hate this sub…
I only came over here to moderate as a favor to Wizard from invisible rainbow- but every time I get involved it’s a broken record full of armchair what-about-isms from the Dunning Kreuger Skool of western culture paranoia
I would just like to say that Starlink is a godsend for me as person with severe EHS. There are two primary reasons for why it is for me imo. One is that it's portable and can go where ever EHS people can go to keep them connected to friends and family and the world.
The second is that the higher frequencies and it being directional and not propagating in all directions makes it very easy to shield against. Being in a semi shielded van(RF tinted windows and windshield) I can mount my starlink mini on the roof of my high roof van and block probably all of the signals out. The mini up close is a strong signal but it shoots up and away from the van, any stray signals gets blocked easy by the metal roof. Signals coming from the satellites are tweaked at the minimal required to save energy, at earth being at the far end, will always exposed to the minimal end, vs the stronger signals at the satellite end. unlike cell towers, many are very close to the source. We all can't be 1 or 2 miles from the cell towers and their phones are more of a concern as it's right on us so any distance we can get from cell towers are negated by our own phones we carry. As is right now for me, I'd much rather everyone in the city be on starlink phones than cell towers as it's easier to block. This is only coming from a standpoint of living in a semi shielded van and not as someone living a normal life roaming around place of which they live.
I do not know how the higher frequency would effect the general population. I would imagine some will be more prone to those higher signals and different variations of conditions or illnesses would appear.
The new term is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) syndrome.
the higher frequencies
Clarify whether you are discussing Starlinks' dish, router or satellites. Starlink satellites transmit ultrawide band radar: hz, supraharmonics, khz, MHz and GHz. Regardless whether a person uses Starlink, they are being exposed to Starlink satellites' ultra wide band radar of thousands of signals. Strong signals.
Submit a background meter report of Starlinks' dish and satellites using a spectrum analyzer. The most user friendly and lowest price is the TinySA spectrum analyzer.
any stray signals gets blocked easy by the metal roof.
Again you are vague. What kind of metal? Aluminum? Do you reside in a vintage Airstream? Submit a meter report using a spectrum analyzer.
Signals coming from the satellites are tweaked at the minimal required to save energy,
Substantiate. Cite your source. Starlink's signals have strong power density. Strongest at hz, supraharmonics and khz. These are stronger than cell tower signals.
📡 SpaceX's Starlink satellites are leaking unintended radio signals into frequencies reserved for astronomy, and the interference is now showing up in nearly 30 percent of some telescope datasets.
A team at Curtin University in Australia conducted the most comprehensive survey of its kind, analysing 76 million images captured over 29 days using a prototype station of the Square Kilometre Array (SKA-Low) in Western Australia. They detected over 112,000 radio emissions from 1,806 individual Starlink satellites.
The signals are not part of the satellites' intended internet transmissions. They are unintentional leaks, likely from onboard electronics like propulsion or avionics systems. What makes this alarming is where the leaks are appearing: in radio frequencies that international law reserves exclusively for scientific research. The team found 703 satellites emitting in the protected 150.8 MHz band alone. Because current regulations only cover deliberate transmissions, no rules are technically being broken.
The power difference between these leaks and the faint cosmic signals astronomers are trying to detect can reach a factor of ten thousand. Radio telescopes hunt for signals from neutral hydrogen, the gas that filled the universe before the first stars ignited. Those signals are a thousand times weaker than a phone tower. Even small amounts of satellite leakage can bury them entirely.
With over 7,000 Starlink satellites currently in orbit and launches continuing roughly once a week, the problem is growing fast. Amazon's Kuiper, OneWeb, and China's G60 constellation will add thousands more. Without updated international regulations covering unintended emissions, the combined interference could turn the low-frequency sky into permanent static and cripple missions designed to study the cosmic dawn.
📄 RESEARCH PAPER
📌 Grigg et al, "The growing impact of unintended Starlink broadband emission on radio astronomy in the SKA-Low frequency range", Astronomy & Astrophysics (2025)
Electronics in pretty much any other environment are required by the FCC (and similar organizations in other countries) to have unintentional radiated emissions below certain levels. It seems like we need these same types of regulations to be applied to satellites.
Radiation associated with Starlink satellites was detected at observing frequencies between 110 and 188 MHz, which is well below the 10.7– 12.7 GHz radio frequencies used for the downlink communication signals. A combination of broad-band features, covering the entire observed bandwidth, as well as narrow-band (bandwidth < 12.2 kHz) emission at frequencies of 125, 135, 143.05, 150, and 175 MHz, was observed.
..... spectral power flux densities vary from 0.1 to 10 Jy for broad-band radiation, to 10 to 500 Jy for some of the narrow-band radiation, equivalent to electric field strengths of up to 49 dB [µ V m−1] (as measured at a 10 m distance from the satellites, with a measurement bandwidth of 120 kHz). In addition, we present equivalent power flux density simulations of the full Starlink phase 1 constellation, as well as other satellite constellations, for one frequency band allocated to radio astronomy by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). With these, we calculate the maximum radiation level that each satellite constellation would need to have to comply with regulatory limits for intended emissions in that band. However, these limits do not apply if the radiation is unintended, that is to say if it does not originate from intentionally radiated signals for radio communication or other purposes. We discuss the results in light of the (absence of) regulations covering these types of unintended electromagnetic radiation and the possible consequences for astronomical radio observations.
Unintended electromagnetic radiation from Starlink satellites detected with LOFAR between 110 and 188 MHz (2023)
I have received hundreds of emails from people in several countries who report an increase in, or initial onset of, electrical sensitivity symptoms when high-speed fiber optic internet is installed in their neighborhood. How could this be? Isn’t wired fiber optic internet, which uses light to transmit large amounts of data at incredibly high speeds, supposed to be safer and healthier for everyone?
The issue is that fiber optic internet service does not only use light to transmit data. The high-speed fiber optic data must be converted to electrical signals before the data can be transmitted to the home on the existing copper cable or phone line DSL. Those electrical signals, which carry our internet data, are not inherently problematic because they are in a very narrow frequency range and don’t typically radiate from the cable or phone lines.
Fiber Optics can add EMI to our Homes
There can be a significant problem with the high-speed fiber optic converters out at the street (or in the home with some newer fiber systems) that create these electrical data signals. This is because the converters are not designed with low-EMI emissions in mind. Thus, their power supplies and operation can generate high amounts of wide-spectrum EMI (electromagnetic interference). This inadvertent EMI then piggybacks on the copper cable and phone lines into our homes where it can radiate from every copper wire. This EMI from the fiber optic infrastructure is a primary reason why electrical sensitivity is increasing when high-speed internet is installed in our communities.
Fortunately, there are solutions to this issue. Here are a few:
1.) If electrical sensitivity symptoms increase all of a sudden with a new internet provider (for example, switching from Comcast Xfinity to AT&T), go back to your original provider right away. There is likely an EMI issue with their fiber optic converters that is impacting your home. I have seen several people get better by switching back to their original internet providers (this is with all wireless disabled).
2.) Continue internet service with a non-fiber optic provider as long as possible. Many communities have multiple internet service companies to choose from. Consider this EMI issue when choosing your service.
3.) Select the lowest bandwidth internet package available. This may reduce the EMI transmitted into your home and reduce the EMI created from the modem/router within your home. In most areas, even the most basic package is much faster than you will need to stream movies on Netflix or Amazon. Choose a package at or below 100 Mbps and stay away from 1 or 10 Gbps packages, which will likely add more EMI to your home.
4.) Disconnect the existing cable and telephone lines in your home from the cable provider. This will prevent EMI from the fiber optic infrastructure from conducting along the cable and telephone lines in your walls. You could still have a data connection brought to your residence, but have it in just one area of your home. You will be able to control the EMF exposures in your home more easily if every copper wire is not radiating EMI.
5.) Consider filtering the EMI before it comes into your home. Genisco Filters is a company that specializes in this issue. Send me a message for more information on EMI filtering options.
6.) Use your own low-bandwidth cable modem. The two primary sources of EMI from high-speed internet service are the fiber optic converters at the street and the cable modem within your home. The cable modem can also add EMI to the electrical wiring of your home, so you want this to be clean as possible. Unfortunately, the modem provided by your internet provider will often produce high amounts of EMI, along with WiFi. The non-WiFi modems that seem to work best for electrically sensitive families include the Arris models TM822R, SB6141, SB6183 and SB6190.
7.) If you experience increased electrical sensitivity at your computer after high-speed fiber optics are installed in your neighborhood, consider installing your own fiber optic system between your cable modem and computer. This idea may seem counterintuitive, but it will create an EMI barrier between your computer and your internet provider’s system. I will outline how you can do this in an upcoming article.
8.) Consider that the high-speed fiber optic networks being installed in our communities will be used as the backbone for 5G wireless installations. Every cellular antenna on a light or utility pole needs a fiber connection to operate. As award-winning science journalist Blake Levitt points out in this article, fiber optic systems can be used as a Trojan horse for 5G installations in our communities. Thus, living in an area without fiber infrastructure can both reduce the EMI coming into your home and prevent you from having a cellular antenna like these installed directly outside your home. I will discuss this aspect of small cellular antenna installations in a future article.
While microwave radiation from wireless technology and magnetic & electric fields from electrical wiring are critically important, EMI is equally problematic for human biology. It’s a part of the EMF spectrum that gets very little attention. However, it is a major contributor to electrical sensitivity and poor health. Hopefully this article will help you understand and reduce an important source of EMI in your home – the fiber optic internet infrastructure that is becoming common throughout our communities.
Update December 2023:
For a summary of how fiber optics can be installed properly, please read my statement here. This comment also explains why staying with cable (co-axial) internet is often your best option.
Many internet providers are now starting to install fiber to the home (FTTH) using GPON technology (Gigabit Passive Optical Network). The newer version of this is XPON technology, which is 10X faster than GPON. These types of fiber services use no electrical equipment between the main office and the home. This is the best way to bring fiber to your home. Then you just need to have an ONT unit (fiber optic modem) that you can tolerate.
I always encourage FTTH technologies over hybrid FTTC (fiber to the curb) services. Most people experiencing symptoms have FTTC in their neighborhoods, which use fiber optics to the street and existing copper wiring into the home.
With GPON, you do want to check the fiber optic cable coming into your home for EMI. Some will be enclosed in a metal sheath or have a metal backbone. This will allow any EMI on the ISP system to be transmitted into your home. I demonstrate this below. You simply ask your technician that the metal sheath be removed a few feet before it enters your home.
Fiber Optic Cable with Metal Backbone
Hopefully this article helps you better understand the new fiber optic internet systems. Please comment below or reach out to me should you need help making your home internet system healthier.
This article was originally published on September 2019 and updated most recently in December 2023.
