How close to cell transceiver is safe?

[Nobody > (Revisited)]

On 4/28/2011 3:47 PM, Meat Plow wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:59:54 -0400, Kim wrote:

I live in NYC and am thinking of taking an office in a small 6 story
building. On the 6th floor is a door with access to the roof. On the
door is posted a sign that access past this point may expose you to
excessive radiation due to the cell transceiver mounted outside.

I don't know where the cell is actually mounted, but I am considering an
office on the 5th floor. Let say worst case scenario that the cell is
directly above my office. Does anyone think this might pose any health
concerns? IS there a simple, inexpensive way to measure the cell
radiation in the office?

Thanks for your input

The microwave link between repeaters is probably the only source of
radiation you need be concerned about. But they are highly directional.
Regular GSM/CDMA G2/G3/G4 is low wattage and not considered a risk
(depending on who you talk to.)

I take it you've never dealt with Nextel's stuff in the past.
Because of corporate greed and the non-existence of FCC enforcement,
they often pushed the '3w ERP' past ridiculous.

On one shared site I 'had a hand in', Nextel was totally hosing up the
local 800mhz public-safety trunking system. The site manager pulled the
plug on some of their gear and then measured the output of the Nextel
gear at the TX ports. Some of their stuff was putting out over 150
watts. That's before it gets to the antenna bays.... and those are gain
antennas. If the array is 10dB gain, that's 1500w ERP.

Site manager pulled all Nextel gear out of the racks, filed an FCC
complaint and dumped the gear out in the parking lot.

They oversold their coverage, and this was the "fix".

This was back in the late 80's, they did clean up their act, but they
ended up buying about all of the old 800 mhz pub-safety bandwidth and
had to re-radio/re-spectrum the previous users systems at Nextel's
expense to do so.

I don't know the overall cost, but it was somewhat a blessing in
disguise for many public-safety orgs, they got a free 10-15 year
'technology upgrade' from their old gear. They even had to pay
remove/install labor.

All that just so Joe-Blow the Contractor could PTT hail his illegal
workers he hires outside Lowes and Home depot???





--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum

 

[anyone]

Mike Yetto wrote on 28-Apr-11 11:03 ...

Nobody<nobody@nowhere.com> writes and having writ moves on.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 08:26:23 -0400, Mike Yetto wrote:

I live in NYC and am thinking of taking an office in a small 6 story
building. On the 6th floor is a door with access to the roof. On the door is
posted a sign that access past this point may expose you to excessive
radiation due to the cell transceiver mounted outside.

It is non-ionizing radiation.

That doesn't mean that it's automatically harmless. Sufficiently
strong microwave radiation can cause injury through localised heating.

It means that it is will not cause cellular or genetic mutation
by breaking DNA or proteins.

Nor is a cell tower likely to overload the natural temperature
regulation of a human body.

Nope, bad guess. It is -entirely- possible to cook meat with sufficient
field strength. Generally (and if memory serves), cell towers can
deliver kilowatts; they're placed high-up to improve the range and the
large distance to ground structures and people helps minimize physical
risk. Just how much field strength is tolerable, and over what period
of time, is not clear. Studies alternately claim "some risk" and "none":

http://www.rfglobalnet.com/article.mvc/Cell-Phone-Cancer-link-Discovered-0001

http://www.rfglobalnet.com/article.mvc/Cell-Phone-Use-May-Have-Effect-On-Brain-0001

U.S. regulations tend to be more stringent than those in Europe, and
that's good but again there isn't much conclusive evidence for tolerable
field strength.

The OP should ask building maintenance people whether there is any
additional shielding in walls or ceilings on upper floors; whether there
is a routine field strength audit of upper floors, and if so, what's in
the latest report.

 

[anyone]

§ùßhwÜ£f wrote on 29-Apr-11 06:52 ...

asdf wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:59:54 -0400, Kim wrote:

I live in NYC and am thinking of taking an office in a small 6 story
building. On the 6th floor is a door with access to the roof. On the
door is posted a sign that access past this point may expose you to
excessive radiation due to the cell transceiver mounted outside.

Inverse square law. If a cellphone tower, usually powered in the range
of tens of watts, does any harm to people at dozens meters to it, then
a cellphone with several hundreds milliwatts output in your pocket
*must* fry your testicles.

The answer is therefore: you're perfectly safe in that office. Don't
however put the tower itself near your pockets or you're looking for
troubles.

i disagree...

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers
is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective
in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100
to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts,
Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland,
at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000
times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent
levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S.
standard.

http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html


http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=61&dir=2009/October/Monday5

I suspect you and I know different rules.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:06:07 PM UTC-7, Phil Allison wrote:

"whit3rd the witless"

Don't worry about it.
The cell tower sends the same data, to the same distance,
as a cellphone, so it doesn't use any higher power.


** Is that a theorem in RF engineering ? Don't think so.

But, I do think so.
It's Claude Shannon's theorem, of communication in a noisy channel;
the information transfer is less than or equal to the signal to
signal-plus-noise ratio times the bandwidth. A thrifty RF
engineer will choose the right power level for the task.

When NASA want to communicate with a space probe, do they use similar
powered gear to the probe?

Thrift is a different concept when one station's cost is
kilobucks per gram. Data rates and latencies aren't symmetric
there, either.

Eve if the transmitted RF power were no more than a cell phone, the field
strength has gotta be 20 or 30dB higher.

Yes, the multiplicity of channels (hundreds into a cell tower, one
into a cell phone) makes such a higher field strength at the tower likely.

 

[Bob Masta]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:52:06 -0600,
=?UTF-8?B?wqfDscO8aHfDtsKjZg==?= <snuhwolf@netscape.net>
wrote:

asdf wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:59:54 -0400, Kim wrote:

I live in NYC and am thinking of taking an office in a small 6 story
building. On the 6th floor is a door with access to the roof. On the
door is posted a sign that access past this point may expose you to
excessive radiation due to the cell transceiver mounted outside.

Inverse square law. If a cellphone tower, usually powered in the range of
tens of watts, does any harm to people at dozens meters to it, then a
cellphone with several hundreds milliwatts output in your pocket *must*
fry your testicles.

The answer is therefore: you're perfectly safe in that office. Don't
however put the tower itself near your pockets or you're looking for
troubles.

i disagree...

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers
is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective
in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100
to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts,
Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland,
at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000
times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent
levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S.
standard.

http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html

http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=61&dir=2009/October/Monday5

The existence of standards isn't evidence of the existence
of risk. Standards for low-level RF are typically more of a
political issue than medical or scientific. Politicians are
pressured by the public to "do something" about the
ridiculous claims of fear-mongers. Then a review of
existing research is done, and the standard is arbitrarily
selected to be so low that nobody whose name is associated
with it can be accused of endangering the public safety.

Look at all the hoopla about "power line radiation" and "Low
Emission" CRTs started by one idiot (Paul Brodeur) writing
in the New Yorker. The "studies" he quoted were junk
science at it's worst, yet the general public (and all too
many "science reporters") couldn't tell that and started
worrying.

Similar situation now with cell phones. The recent MRI
study is classic junk science... it's clear the researchers
were totally clueless about what they were doing (tested
cell phones *receiving* calls, not transmitting), but
apparently nobody in the media picked up on this little
detail!

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.01
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

 

[§ńühwöŁf]

Bob Masta wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:52:06 -0600,
=?UTF-8?B?wqfDscO8aHfDtsKjZg==?= <snuhwolf@netscape.net
wrote:

asdf wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:59:54 -0400, Kim wrote:

I live in NYC and am thinking of taking an office in a small 6 story
building. On the 6th floor is a door with access to the roof. On the
door is posted a sign that access past this point may expose you to
excessive radiation due to the cell transceiver mounted outside.
Inverse square law. If a cellphone tower, usually powered in the range of
tens of watts, does any harm to people at dozens meters to it, then a
cellphone with several hundreds milliwatts output in your pocket *must*
fry your testicles.

The answer is therefore: you're perfectly safe in that office. Don't
however put the tower itself near your pockets or you're looking for
troubles.
i disagree...

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers
is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective
in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100
to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts,
Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland,
at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000
times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent
levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S.
standard.

http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html

http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=61&dir=2009/October/Monday5

The existence of standards isn't evidence of the existence
of risk.

neither is it a proof that risk dosnt exist. standards are often
neutral. so your point is?

--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://stopbeck.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:18:12 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:52:06 -0600,
=?UTF-8?B?wqfDscO8aHfDtsKjZg==?= <snuhwolf@netscape.net
wrote:

asdf wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:59:54 -0400, Kim wrote:

I live in NYC and am thinking of taking an office in a small 6 story
building. On the 6th floor is a door with access to the roof. On the
door is posted a sign that access past this point may expose you to
excessive radiation due to the cell transceiver mounted outside.

Inverse square law. If a cellphone tower, usually powered in the range of
tens of watts, does any harm to people at dozens meters to it, then a
cellphone with several hundreds milliwatts output in your pocket *must*
fry your testicles.

The answer is therefore: you're perfectly safe in that office. Don't
however put the tower itself near your pockets or you're looking for
troubles.

i disagree...

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers
is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective
in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100
to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts,
Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland,
at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000
times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent
levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S.
standard.

http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html

http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=1&aid=61&dir=2009/October/Monday5

The existence of standards isn't evidence of the existence
of risk. Standards for low-level RF are typically more of a
political issue than medical or scientific. Politicians are
pressured by the public to "do something" about the
ridiculous claims of fear-mongers. Then a review of
existing research is done, and the standard is arbitrarily
selected to be so low that nobody whose name is associated
with it can be accused of endangering the public safety.

Look at all the hoopla about "power line radiation" and "Low
Emission" CRTs started by one idiot (Paul Brodeur) writing
in the New Yorker. The "studies" he quoted were junk
science at it's worst, yet the general public (and all too
many "science reporters") couldn't tell that and started
worrying.

Similar situation now with cell phones. The recent MRI
study is classic junk science... it's clear the researchers
were totally clueless about what they were doing (tested
cell phones *receiving* calls, not transmitting), but
apparently nobody in the media picked up on this little
detail!

What's the difference between a cell phone "receiving calls" and
"transmitting"?

 

[Rich Grise]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:18:12 GMT, N0Spam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
...
Similar situation now with cell phones. The recent MRI
study is classic junk science... it's clear the researchers
were totally clueless about what they were doing (tested
cell phones *receiving* calls, not transmitting), but
apparently nobody in the media picked up on this little
detail!

What's the difference between a cell phone "receiving calls" and
"transmitting"?

Well, when it's "receiving," it's receiving, and when it's "transmitting,"
it's well, transmitting.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:52:06 -0600, §ńühwöŁf <snuhwolf@netscape.net>
wrote:

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers
is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2),

---
mW = milliwatts


--
JF