 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to r81984
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? I guess those "homeowners" don't use cell phones? Or is it they just don't want the necessities in their neighborhood? Those who don't want cell towers should have their area blocked from cell frequencies. |
|
|
|
 clock
join:2007-05-02
Roslindale, MA
 ·RCN CABLE
1 edit | reply to DonLibes
Where is the OP located? I know that a town in my area (Brookline) put up a stink about cell phone towers a few years back. The residents didn't want a cell tower, but wanted coverage in their homes. A lot of people came through with the same arguments about RF exposure and the like. All 5 cell companies pooled together and put up a DAS system in the town. Since then people have had reception, and no one registered a complaint with the PUC about RF exposure and the like. With most people it seems to be out of sight, out of mind.
»gallery.wirelessadvisor.com/file···2628.jpg
Here's one.
»gallery.wirelessadvisor.com/file···2626.jpg
And another |
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:I would have to respectfully disagree that non-ionizing cannot cause health hazards... I didn't say EMF (electro-magnetic fields) doesn't cause health hazards. Obviously standing in front of a radar antenna or putting your hand in a running microwave oven is sure to mess one up. However, there have been countless studies; and decades and decades of statistical data that has been reviewed, with the collective conclusion that aside from being burnt from over-exposure to strong fields; EMF is not hazardous to our health. There have been some studies that have possibly shown a slightly higher incidence; etc. In all of those cases the studies turned out to be biased, or improper conclusions drawn. (This is not me ad-libbing. This is the general conclusion from the medical research community. Obviously, those whose research was concluded to be fault or biased, may disagree.)
said by 49528867:I [and a group in the NAB] personally feel there is a direct connection between certain forms of cancer and long term exposure to RF. I respect your feelings. And those of some people in the NAB. And anyone else's feelings. However, collectively, this adds up to absolutely zero level of scientific evidence.
said by 49528867:[I believe] This effect is compounded by both the power level of the exposure and the frequency of the RF one is being exposed to, in other words the higher the power levels and or the higher the frequency, the greater the dangers of cellular mutation. Personally I believe there is more to it. More feelings and personal beliefs - not facts. Cellular [genetic] mutation has never been demonstrated from EMF well up beyond milli-meter wave frequencies. Ever. That's why its called non-ionizing radiation. X-rays? Yes. Gamma rays? Yes. Hiroshima? Yes. But that's not what we're talking about.
said by 49528867:Now the conventional wisdom is RF only causes localized cellular heating, and the effects of any heating reverses itself once the exposure to the RF is eliminated... Well, for the record then; lets be clear here. At the molecular level, RF doesn't cause heat. It adds energy to the electrons in atoms; similarly to the photo-electric effect. The electrons bounce around; hit each other; and the result is that the energy dissipates as heat. This is why one's Swanson's dinner is still cooking after it comes out of the microwave oven. For genetic mutation to occur; the atoms themselves have to actually change. This does not happen by adding energy (or even losing & gaining) electrons (all of which occurs normally all of the time in the human body - electric currents.) This is borne out both by the laws of physics; and countless studies. There would be reams of evidence of statistical data available, if EMF actually caused mutations.
Think about cell-phone penetration. There have been no tremendous increases in diseases from genetic mutation - cancers - that is in any way attributable to an increase in cell phone use; certainly not more than what can be attributed to statistical aberation in isolated circumstances. No one has been able to show any correlation at all; which would be necessary well before cause and effect could be established. If indeed, EMF was responsible for leukemia, brain cancer, big-toe cancer, etc. - it would have long ago been clearly discerned. And it would not have needed a scientific study. The incidence of these cancers would be skyrocketing around the world.
Likewise, there haven't been any incidence of going in for an MRI, where one's body is subjected to tremendously strong electro-magnetic fields; of people developing cancer from this. Actually, the MRI has turned out to be a cancer saving miracle.
said by 49528867:Personally I have known too many broadcast engineers who have had their retirement cut short by leukemia to dismiss it as a coincidence. Thanks, Wayne. I do appreciate your points. Bear in mind, however, when it comes to science & statistics, the level of people you are talking about don't even rise to anything other than a miniscule isolated sampling pool that doesn't arise to any blip on the radar. Sorry to hear about it. In 2000, approximately 256,000 children and adults around the world developed some form of leukemia, and 209,000 died from it. (Source - Wikipedia) That is 6.4 thousandths of a percent. Certainly, if EMF were responsible, common sense alone would say those numbers have to be higher.
There have been a huge swath of studies in the interest of seeing if there is any link between leukemia and any form of EMF going back over 30 years. The only statistical evidence that even came close to correlating to something worth looking into very deeply, was a possible relationship between Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electro-magnetic fields and incidences of childhood leukemia. The conclusions, after 30 years of study, are as follows:
International Agency for Research on Cancer:
»monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph···ndex.php
quote:
There is limited evidence that high levels of ELF magnetic (but not electric) fields might cause childhood leukemia. Exposure to significant ELF magnetic fields might result in twofold excess risk for leukemia for children exposed to these high levels of magnetic fields. However, the report also says that methodological weaknesses and biases in these studies have likely caused the risk to be overstated. No evidence for a relationship to leukemia or another form of malignancy in adults has been demonstrated.
Note that when the IARC says "possibly carcinogenic to humans"; this classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples that are "possibly carcinogenic to humans include drinking coffee and welding fumes. There are countless others. Maybe the IAB guys just drank a lot of coffee?
World Health Organization:
»www.who.int/mediacentre/factshee···dex.html
The WHO concluded, that even if ELF exposure were later discovered to actually cause childhood leukemia, it would account for just 100 to 2400 cases worldwide each year, representing 0.2 to 4.9% of the total incidence of childhood leukemia for that year (about 0.03 to 0.9% of all leukemias). Note that taking the worst case, those numbers would account for an incidence rate of less than one-millionth of one percent. That's a long shot in comparison of one's odds of getting struck by lightning or dying in an airplane crash. Certainly, we have much, much more to live in fear about.
Note that the FCC, and IEEE, requirements, limit exposure to RF EMF by virtue of the distance that such radiators must be placed from buildings (for example). The fields from the antennas in the photo are well below any strength even rising to concern. Rumors, old-brodcaster's tales, etc - it just has not been borne out by any type of scientific facts. A lot of this started in the 1970s, when big bad three-mile island released some gawd awful radiation that decimated the population. Since then, anything to do with the word 'radiation', has become a magic enemy to be avoided. Whether consciously or subconsciously, many people harbor concerns regarding EMF from this period. Fortunately, there is nothing to be concerned about except being over-fearful. That same goes for all those people dying from sitting too close to the television; or all those people dying from having microwave ovens in their homes. No facts to back it up. None.
 |
|
scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 | reply to macsierra
I think the fake trees are tackier than the unadorned , plain cell tower. And probably don't work as well... |
|
 djm61Change? HAH
join:2001-06-20
Simi Valley, CA | reply to Dude111
Re: said by Dude111:I wonder if it has camara in it?? (Could be why its so close to houses (To be used as a monitoring point))
Dude, Put on your tinfoil hat and back away from the computer!
--
Remember, remember the fifth of November, The Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why The Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot. |
|
| reply to cowboyro
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? said by cowboyro:It's capacitive coupling. Not to be confused with electromagnetic radiation.
Wait, what?
It's the same thing. |
|
| said by fifty nine:said by cowboyro:It's capacitive coupling. Not to be confused with electromagnetic radiation.
Wait, what? It's the same thing. Nope. Capacitive coupling and RF pickup are 2 very different things. Capaqcitive coupling works only over relatively short distances while RF pickup, as long you have a powerful enough transmitter and a sensitive enough receiver, can work over very-very long distances.
--
Wacky Races 2012! |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to DonLibes
Answer to #1 and #2 is the same.
No. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to nunya
LOL @ Tree camouflage. |
|
whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to aurgathor
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? said by aurgathor:said by fifty nine:said by cowboyro:It's capacitive coupling. Not to be confused with electromagnetic radiation. Wait, what? It's the same thing. Nope. Capacitive coupling and RF pickup are 2 very different things. The actions of any capacitor work because of an electromagnetic field. Nothing more, nothing less. Radio waves are also due to electromagnetic fields.
See: Electromagnetic fields, Maxwell's equations.
The only difference between the two is that at a capacitor the near-field equations apply & the 'electric' portion of the field is stronger. It is still an EMF based on moving electric charges and does indeed radiate. Unless its part of resonant circuit, its not very useful as a transmitter.
quote:
In the past, electrically charged objects were thought to produce two different, unrelated types of field associated with their charge property. An electric field is produced when the charge is stationary with respect to an observer measuring the properties of the charge, and a magnetic field (as well as an electric field) is produced when the charge moves (creating an electric current) with respect to this observer. Over time, it was realized that the electric and magnetic fields are better thought of as two parts of a greater whole — the electromagnetic field.
if either the electric or magnetic field has a time-dependence, then both fields must be considered together as a coupled electromagnetic field using Maxwell's equations. A changing electromagnetic field which is physically close to currents and charges (see near and far field for a definition of “close”) will have a dipole characteristic that is dominated by either a changing electric dipole, or a changing magnetic dipole. This type of dipole field near sources is called an electromagnetic near-field.
|
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by whizkid3:It is still an EMF based on moving electric charges and does indeed radiate. Unless its part of resonant circuit, its not very useful as a transmitter. Which in turn means that the amount of energy radiated is negligible. |
|
| said by cowboyro:said by whizkid3:It is still an EMF based on moving electric charges and does indeed radiate. Unless its part of resonant circuit, its not very useful as a transmitter. Which in turn means that the amount of energy radiated is negligible. »www.stopgeek.com/richard-boxs-li···eld.html
Nice public art project. |
|
| reply to whizkid3
»xkcd.com/925/
/M |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:http://www.stopgeek.com/richard-boxs-light-field.html
Nice public art project.
Doesn't mean anything. He's just shunting the air gap between the lines and the ground creating a path for the current to flow.
You can make a fluorescent tube glow from the static charge you collect. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RuralNet
| reply to macsierra
They do a good job of hiding them here in Southern Az.. Of course, they only do that on very few antennas.
Many more..
»sabinocanyonblog.blogspot.com/20···cti.html
~Mark |
|
| 
DAS Cactus |
Below is an interview described as, "Mike Kavanagh (President of DAS Networks, Crown Castle) discusses the negotiation and solution for deploying wireless in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, AZ without creating an eyesore for residents."
Aesthetics is something OPs local town leaders should have negotiated and/or insisted on for their project but seems they didn't.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1-ONh-G7KE
-Jim |
|
whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to cowboyro
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? said by cowboyro:Which in turn means that the amount of energy radiated is negligible. That is true. Capacitors are designed to keep most of the field between their two plates. |
|
| reply to cowboyro
said by cowboyro:said by fifty nine:http://www.stopgeek.com/richard-boxs-light-field.html
Nice public art project.
Doesn't mean anything. He's just shunting the air gap between the lines and the ground creating a path for the current to flow. You can make a fluorescent tube glow from the static charge you collect. Actually most of what is radiated from powerlines is through electromagnetic induction or EM which is how this works. There is still some ELF being radiated but it is pretty small. It is still there though, and it's how touch lamps and other touch controls used to work (I have no idea if they still use that). |
|
