1
   

Mobile phone transmitter health fears

 
 
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:13 am
I'm just wondering why those previously quite often articulated fears seem to have diminished now?

Did we get used to the "new" technology that we don't question it anymore?

Were the results sufficient enough that we really don't have to fear anything?

What are your ideas about that ... and how is/was the discussion going on where you live?


Frankly spoken, I don't see a huge risk, at least not more than we usually get living in these times.

It had surprise me, however, that we can find here such transmitters e.g. on the roofs of senior residences as in this example which I just photographed from my window (280 yards away):

http://i10.tinypic.com/44vqjh3.jpg
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,087 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:41 am
I use the hands-free cable most of the time. The bluetooth headsets look patently ridiculous for mine.

Protests about the positioning of repeater towers like in your picture are justified. They are microwave send/receive units, and they should not be placed within cooee of anyone; the elderly included.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 01:25 pm
in canada microwave transmission towers are found pretty well all over the place .
particularly in isolated northern communities it's about the only way to bring reliable telephone and internet services to these remote communities .
the linked article desribes one such service reaching the community of "rainy river" , ontario ,
there was initially some resistance to the building of these towers - went to protest meeting some years ago to object to locating of transmitter on building next to high-school .
there is also still the question of possible health problems from using of cellphones , but just about everyone seems to be using one . we keep one in the car for emergency use - but it hasn't seen much use :wink: .
hbg

RAINY RIVER GETS HOOKED UP
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 01:28 pm
Builder wrote:

Protests about the positioning of repeater towers like in your picture are justified. They are microwave send/receive units, and they should not be placed within cooee of anyone; the elderly included.


I totally agree - but it's easy earnt money for the owners of such places.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:06 pm
Quote:
but it's easy earnt money for the owners of such places.


...and everyone wants cell-phone access - but please put the tower in the neighbour's backyard :wink: .
hbg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:21 pm
We had had long discussions in the village where we lived before - but there, they finally placed the transmitters outside, which seemed to have even better.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:26 pm
walter wrote :

Quote:
We had had long discussions in the village where we lived before - but there, they finally placed the transmitters outside, which seemed to have even better.

Shocked

it seems to me that anyone who wants "microwave transmission service" , should agree to have it placed on his house .
(kidding , of course - i don't want one on our house Confused -but we still like to keep the cellphone) .
hbg
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 02:49 pm
Re: Mobile phone transmitter health fears
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'm just wondering why those previously quite often articulated fears seem to have diminished now?

Because these fears have been tested in several rigorous clinical studies, and none of them supported the hypothesis that these installations actually pose health risk. (There have been non-rigorous studies that did find harm -- studies with small sample sizes, insufficient control for other factors, etc. But the alleged problem disappeared as soon as they were re-examined with proper studies.

Walter Hinteler wrote:
]Did we get used to the "new" technology that we don't question it anymore?

No. It's just that the answer to the repeated questioning is that no harm could be demonstrated.

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Were the results sufficient enough that we really don't have to fear anything?

Depends on what you call sufficient. Since you can never prove a negative, sufficiently paranoid, er, cautious people will never be satisfied with the available evidence.

Walter Hinteler wrote:
What are your ideas about that ... and how is/was the discussion going on where you live?

Basically, there is no discussion going on anymore here in Munich -- fortunately, given the quality of the discussions in the past.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 03:10 pm
Re: Mobile phone transmitter health fears
Thomas wrote:

Basically, there is no discussion going on anymore here in Munich -- fortunately, given the quality of the discussions in the past.


Same here - though you still find some "hard boiled actionists" in a couple of action groups working on it ... now and then.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 04:51 pm
Builder wrote:
Protests about the positioning of repeater towers like in your picture are justified. They are microwave send/receive units, and they should not be placed within cooee of anyone; the elderly included.


There isn't a single microwave antenna on that tower in the pic. Paranoia reigns supreme!
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 06:35 pm
fishin wrote:
Builder wrote:
Protests about the positioning of repeater towers like in your picture are justified. They are microwave send/receive units, and they should not be placed within cooee of anyone; the elderly included.


There isn't a single microwave antenna on that tower in the pic. Paranoia reigns supreme!


What is missing from that tower?

Here's another microwave send/receive tower. Looks the same to me. '

http://www.etu.asn.au/graphics/2006/hp_tower.jpg

http://www.etu.asn.au/2006/hp_tower.html
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Mar, 2007 08:58 pm
Builder wrote:
fishin wrote:
Builder wrote:
Protests about the positioning of repeater towers like in your picture are justified. They are microwave send/receive units, and they should not be placed within cooee of anyone; the elderly included.


There isn't a single microwave antenna on that tower in the pic. Paranoia reigns supreme!


What is missing from that tower?

Here's another microwave send/receive tower. Looks the same to me. '

http://www.etu.asn.au/graphics/2006/hp_tower.jpg

http://www.etu.asn.au/2006/hp_tower.html


What's missing ? Microwave antennas.

Unless the building in the pic Walter posted is actually a dog house they aren't microwave antennas. Microwave (SHF and EHF) antennas in that configuration don't come any larger than 36" in length and those pictured are significanly longer. Very few antennas on most towers are microwave. They are greatly outnumbered by UHF (including cellular), VHF, FM, etc.. antennas.

The antennas in your pic could be microwave but there isn't any proof that they are. The two lower antennas are VHF sidemounts and the length of those would be a multiple of 51". That is also an 2-meter cage at the top of the tower and the top antenna are less than half it's height so they'd be the right size to be microwave antennas but they's also be the right size to be cellular antennas.

The upper antennas are the type that would be used in microwave installations where high winds are a concern. But the VHF antennas below it are a type that is only suitable for low wind areas. It doesn't make sense that a company would spend extra money for high-wind micowave antennas in a low wind area or would mount low wind VHF antennas in a high wind area. From that I can deduce that they are much more likely, UHF antennas.

A typical microwave configuration for low wind areas would look like this:
http://www.greatdreams.com/microwave.jpg

The round (dish) antennas are microwave.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 05:00 am
Point to one single part of your example that is 36 inches in length, fishin.

You said:

Quote:
Microwave (SHF and EHF) antennas in that configuration don't come any larger than 36"
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 08:14 am
Builder wrote:
Point to one single part of your example that is 36 inches in length, fishin.

You said:

Quote:
Microwave (SHF and EHF) antennas in that configuration don't come any larger than 36"


You aren't paying attention. The pictures that both you and Walter posted show elongated retangular box antennas. Hence the "antennas in that configuration don't come any larger than 36"".

The pic I posted shows the much more common dish antennas - a DIFFERENT configuration - most of which are in the 36" range or smaller as well but could be larger. There aren't any of the rectangular box micorwave antennas on the pic I posted.

Apples <> oranges.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 10:19 am
fishin wrote:
The pictures that both you and Walter posted show elongated retangular box antennas. Hence the "antennas in that configuration don't come any larger than 36"".

The pic I posted shows the much more common dish antennas - a DIFFERENT configuration - most of which are in the 36" range or smaller as well but could be larger. There aren't any of the rectangular box micorwave antennas on the pic I posted.

Apples <> oranges.


My photo shows a Base Transceiver Station (BTS), part of a base staion subsystem.

Those antennas are here usually between 10 and 80 meter high, sometimes more, in big cities less (there, they are installed partly on the ground).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mobile phone transmitter health fears
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/02/2022 at 10:27:47