| analogous to being inside a microwave "analogous to being inside a microwave."
So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? |
|
 DrModemPremium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1 | said by Springbok:"analogous to being inside a microwave." So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? No, you have to be right up to the antennas. |
|
|
|
| reply to Springbok
said by Springbok:So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? If your family was on top of the tower right next to the actual radiating elements, then probably. But if they're safely on the ground I'd expect no worries. Radiation levels decrease exponentially (I believe) with distance. |
|
 toddbs98
join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR | And people will use this story to try to prove that cell phones cause brain tumors.... |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to Springbok
said by Springbok:So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? Yes, but just a little tiny bit. |
|
 mikepdDiscoveryPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to myokitis
From my radiation physics class when I was an x-ray student back in the early '70's-
The original intensity of ionizing radiation falls off inversely proportional to the distance squared.
This is known as the Inverse Square Law and applies to all forms of ionizing radiation.
Here is a website that discusses the inverse square law and related topics.
»www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResource···uare.htm
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp |
|
| reply to Springbok
said by Springbok:"analogous to being inside a microwave." So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? No, for two reasons. First, you'd only need to worry if you were right next to them. Second, it's likely those antennae are for cell phones, since few full-power broadcast stations would have their antennae on a water tower. And since there is a tremendous power difference between a TV or radio transmitter and a cell site transmitter, the power levels aren't even in the same ballpark. |
|
| said by ISurfTooMuch:said by Springbok:"analogous to being inside a microwave." So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? No, for two reasons. First, you'd only need to worry if you were right next to them. Second, it's likely those antennae are for cell phones, since few full-power broadcast stations would have their antennae on a water tower. And since there is a tremendous power difference between a TV or radio transmitter and a cell site transmitter, the power levels aren't even in the same ballpark. Thanks, that makes sense. Are there consumer devices on the market to measure this? |
|
| Not that I know of.
However, this does bring something to mind. If you want to see if a broadcast tower is putting a lot of RF energy into the area where you are, get hold of a fluorescent light bulb. If the RF levels are high enough, the bulb will light up, even without being connected to anything. Not sure if this will work with CFL bulbs or any with the new electronic ballasts, but it worked with the old ones.
If the bulb glows, you aren't necessarily in a dangerous area yet, but I wouldn't be going a whole lot closer. Now, if you can feel a buzzing in your head, from what I'm told, you might want to relocate very quickly. |
|
| said by ISurfTooMuch:Now, if you can feel a buzzing in your head, from what I'm told, you might want to relocate very quickly. Ok, will keep that in mind  |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
·Comcast
| reply to myokitis
said by myokitis:said by Springbok:So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? If your family was on top of the tower right next to the actual radiating elements, then probably. But if they're safely on the ground I'd expect no worries. Radiation levels decrease exponentially (I believe) with distance. Inverse square.
--
Greedy Old Pigs |
|
| reply to Springbok
said by Springbok:Thanks, that makes sense. Are there consumer devices on the market to measure this? On my iphone, I'm running an app that gives me the signal strength in dBm instead of the rather useless 'bars'. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | reply to Springbok
said by Springbokke :
So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family?
No those are cell phone antennas; since cellphone is 2-way wireless communications, those antennas on the water tower put out only a little bit more power than the cellphone that you hold up to your ear.
Much different than a high-power TV transmitter, which can put out an effective radiated power of up to 1 million Watts. That's thousands of times what a microwave does, BTW. |
|
| reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal:On my iphone, I'm running an app that gives me the signal strength in dBm That just tells you what the RF circuit in the phone sees, not what the ambient field is, and it is not calibrated. To get an accurate reading of what your body is being exposed to you need specialized equipment. |
|
| reply to mikepd
TV RF energy is non-ionizing, but the inverse square law applies to that as well.
Looking up the two TV and one FM on the tower, almost a half a million watts of RF is radiated just from those three stations. He's lucky WTXX doesn't have their channel 20 DTV online yet, or it would have been almost a million watts. Exposure at the antenna to that much RF has permanent repercussions. |
|
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:those antennas on the water tower put out only a little bit more power than the cellphone that you hold up to your ear. Most cell sites operate at powers several magnitudes higher than what your cell phone uses. Even the lowest power PCS transmitter is 20 watts and each site has several of these running. The EiRP at the antenna is several times higher. You don't want that next to your head even for a second. Back in the AMPS days, a cell phone was only three watts at full power. |
|
 pit_viper1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24 | reply to Springbok
said by Springbok:said by ISurfTooMuch:said by Springbok:"analogous to being inside a microwave." So does that mean the antennas fixed to the water tower behind my house is poisoning my family? No, for two reasons. First, you'd only need to worry if you were right next to them. Second, it's likely those antennae are for cell phones, since few full-power broadcast stations would have their antennae on a water tower. And since there is a tremendous power difference between a TV or radio transmitter and a cell site transmitter, the power levels aren't even in the same ballpark. Thanks, that makes sense. Are there consumer devices on the market to measure this? You could get a NARD alert. I am a certified climber and when climbing tranmist sites I typically climb with a NARD alert and it will alarm me if RF levels are to high and power needs to be reduced.
I paid $1500 bucks for it. |
|
