 LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to DonLibes
Re: how close can a cell tower be to a house? I'm going to say it's not a micro-cell site; and is more likley a DAS for smart meters, public transport, or some other use...
There's no microwave uplink visable (usually a small "drum" 12-20" across) to link the site to a larger network... Cell repeaters can't operate uplinks across the same antenna sectors used for cell service; nor is it common to feed fibre to a micro-cell site.
As for the safety - I'm a firefighter, a telephone/cellular tech, and have wrenched on and painted race cars for years. I'm getting cancer at some point - there will be no way for me to tell which of my potentially risky exposures, if any, will be responsible... I don't believe there's any great risk from Wifi or cell exposure; but we'll only know for sure in the future, after the technology has been around for 30-40 years... |
|
|
|
 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | said by LazMan:we'll only know for sure in the future, after the technology has been around for 30-40 years... People have been using microwaves routinely since WWII, some 70 years. Electromagnetic waves, which includes microwaves, have been around since...hmmm...the big bang.
Unfortunately, the average tin foil hat wearer easily gets electromagnetic waves confused with ionizing radiation - the stuff from nuclear weapons - and panics; not realizing their walls are full of wires giving off electromagnetic waves that are much stronger when they fall upon the body than tiny antennas placed 30 feet high on a pole. |
|
| A laptop with WiFi is a bigger health hazard -- especially if it's sitting on your lap! |
|
Reviews:
 ·ProLog
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·voip.ms
| reply to LazMan
It is very hard to tell from the picture with all the lower level trees but it does look like there is a fiber run to the pole that does not continue past the pole.
It could be CATV, but the inline can looks suspiciously like a fiber amplifier.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. |
|
| said by pende_tim:It is very hard to tell from the picture with all the lower level trees but it does look like there is a fiber run to the pole that does not continue past the pole.
It could be CATV, but the inline can looks suspiciously like a fiber amplifier.
Fiber amp?? Pretty sure it is a splice box/container, so yes it is fiber, but not an amp. |
|
LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to whizkid3
said by whizkid3:People have been using microwaves routinely since WWII, some 70 years. Electromagnetic waves, which includes microwaves, have been around since...hmmm...the big bang.
True enough - although the plethora of devices has increased dramatically in the last 5 years (WiFi and Cell) - I agree that EM waves are EM waves, and we recieve more from the sun then man-made sources; but only time will tell if we're right - or if we should have busted out the tin-foil hats, too.... 
Just remember - living is 100% fatal... No one gets out alive... :P |
|
LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to cooldude9919
said by cooldude9919:said by pende_tim:It is very hard to tell from the picture with all the lower level trees but it does look like there is a fiber run to the pole that does not continue past the pole.
It could be CATV, but the inline can looks suspiciously like a fiber amplifier.
Fiber amp?? Pretty sure it is a splice box/container, so yes it is fiber, but not an amp. True, there is a lashback there (and a pretty sloppy one at that) with a splice can, but from this angle, it's impossible to say if it's connected to equipment at the pole, or if it's just coincidental... |
|
| said by LazMan:said by cooldude9919:said by pende_tim:It is very hard to tell from the picture with all the lower level trees but it does look like there is a fiber run to the pole that does not continue past the pole.
It could be CATV, but the inline can looks suspiciously like a fiber amplifier.
Fiber amp?? Pretty sure it is a splice box/container, so yes it is fiber, but not an amp. True, there is a lashback there (and a pretty sloppy one at that) with a splice can, but from this angle, it's impossible to say if it's connected to equipment at the pole, or if it's just coincidental... True, it looks like all the cables go up the pole on the back side that we cant see. IMHO with it appearing to be the last pole with nothing past it, unless they have FTTH there, i wouldnt see them running fiber and stopping in a residential area like that for a different reason? |
|
LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | Nothing says it isn't a "dip" - that the aerial structures go underground at that point... Again, no real way to tell from the OP's picture.
Or, the fibre could terminate there, and be feeding that radio equipment... Dunno... |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | reply to LazMan
said by LazMan: As for the safety - I'm a firefighter, a telephone/cellular tech, and have wrenched on and painted race cars for years. I'm getting cancer at some point - there will be no way for me to tell which of my potentially risky exposures, if any, will be responsible... I don't believe there's any great risk from Wifi or cell exposure; but we'll only know for sure in the future, after the technology has been around for 30-40 years... You and I chose to do this stuff over the years but kids in school and living near these towers didn't. My son worked cell towers out west until recently and thankfully decided to go back to school. |
|
LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | said by peterboro:said by LazMan: As for the safety - I'm a firefighter, a telephone/cellular tech, and have wrenched on and painted race cars for years. I'm getting cancer at some point You and I chose to do this stuff over the years but kids in school and living near these towers didn't. My son worked cell towers out west until recently and thankfully decided to go back to school. I can't argue for, or against, with any great conviction... We (in generally) are getting exposed to more and more of this type of radiation. There's studies that say it's harmless, there's studies that say it's harmful... As I said before, the only true test, will be time.
Studies are generally useless, I hate to say, because it's rare one doesn't start with an end in mind. Data can be manipulated, "events" excluded or included, to fit the overall end goal. |
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | said by LazMan: I can't argue for, or against, with any great conviction... We (in generally) are getting exposed to more and more of this type of radiation. There's studies that say it's harmless, there's studies that say it's harmful... As I said before, the only true test, will be time. You and I may not be around to find out. But as long as there is "big money" and a large segment of the population who just have to have all their ridiculous little gadgets connected everywhere the truth will be suppressed as long as possible if history is any indicator. |
|
 49528867Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3 | reply to whizkid3
said by whizkid3:Unfortunately, the average tin foil hat wearer easily gets electromagnetic waves confused with ionizing radiation - the stuff from nuclear weapons - and panics; I would have to respectfully disagree that non-ionizing cannot cause health hazards, I personally, as do many others, including a group within the National Association of Broadcasters, who feel there is a direct connection between certain forms of cancer and long term exposure to RF. 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.
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, personally I believe there is more to it but it either has not been scientifically quantified or…
Personally I have known too many broadcast engineers who have had their retirement cut short by leukemia to dismiss it as a coincidence, and while I do not consider myself as a member of the tin-foil hat club, I do everything possible to limit my exposure to RF such as minimizing cell phone use and using the speakerphone feature whenever possible to maximize the distance between me and the handset.
Wayne
--
"It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." - Charles A. Beard |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by 49528867:I would have to respectfully disagree that non-ionizing cannot cause health hazards, I personally, as do many others, including a group within the National Association of Broadcasters, who feel there is a direct connection between certain forms of cancer and long term exposure to RF. 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. I agree.
Some claim that electrical wires from a house also radiate. True, but there is no comparison to RF. None whatsoever. In fact at any distance significantly higher than the one between the AC conductors (say 1ft), the net field is 0 for all practical purposes as the fields generated by the carrying conductors cancel each other.
There is research made which shows without doubt that living organisms are affected by exposure to RF. Sure no links between cellphones and cancer have been made yet, but cellphones have only been used extensively for some 10 years. Asbestos doesn't give cancer instantly either, it may take 20-40 years... |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by cowboyro:I agree.
Some claim that electrical wires from a house also radiate. True, but there is no comparison to RF.
Any wire that carries AC current creates RF. Shielded cable might shield it, but all conductors with an electric current that changes emit EM radiation.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
google this "(sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200*x)+sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqrt(9-x^2), -sqrt(9-x^2)" |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by AVD:Any wire that carries AC current creates RF. Shielded cable might shield it, but all conductors with an electric current that changes emit EM radiation.
Only the amount is insignificant since:
1 - the length of the circuit is insignificant compared to the wavelength
2 - there are 2 conductors carrying current in opposing directions effectively canceling the field.
For all practical purposes the field generated is 0. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by cowboyro:[
2 - there are 2 conductors carrying current in opposing directions effectively canceling the field.
I don't think it works like that.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
google this "(sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200*x)+sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqrt(9-x^2), -sqrt(9-x^2)" |
|
| reply to cowboyro
said by cowboyro:said by AVD:Any wire that carries AC current creates RF. Shielded cable might shield it, but all conductors with an electric current that changes emit EM radiation.
Only the amount is insignificant since: 1 - the length of the circuit is insignificant compared to the wavelength 2 - there are 2 conductors carrying current in opposing directions effectively canceling the field. For all practical purposes the field generated is 0. Take the input to any audio amplifier, and attach a small piece of wire or even your finger and touch it.
The 'hummmmmmm' you hear is radiation from the AC powerline. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to AVD
said by AVD:said by cowboyro:[
2 - there are 2 conductors carrying current in opposing directions effectively canceling the field.
I don't think it works like that. What you "think" doesn't matter as it's wrong. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Take the input to any audio amplifier, and attach a small piece of wire or even your finger and touch it.
The 'hummmmmmm' you hear is radiation from the AC powerline.
It's capacitive coupling. Not to be confused with electromagnetic radiation.
If you unplug all loads from a house the measured active power is pretty much the amount of power radiated. Zero.
If any significant amount of energy would be radiated then a GFI would trip instantly. |
|
