-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Do cell phone towers present a health hazard?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
13 replies to this topic

#1 of 14 brianacook

brianacook

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 77 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 1999

Posted May 13 2002 - 02:57 AM

I recently found out that a call phone tower is to be erected on a hill behind our house. Since many communities oppose the towers saying that the emitted radiation can cause cancer, I figured I would ask the members of the HTF if this is true. Please base your answers on fact and not speculation. Thank you.

Brian

#2 of 14 MickeS

MickeS

    Producer

  • 5,065 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2000

Posted May 13 2002 - 03:21 AM

There have been investigations about whether the radiation from the cellphone itself is dangerous, but nothing conclusive. Basically, it's all speculation at this point.

I have never seen anything about the towers being dangerous.

/Mike
/Mike

#3 of 14 Jared_B

Jared_B

    Supporting Actor

  • 583 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 13 2002 - 03:38 AM

No

#4 of 14 John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer

  • 11,528 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted May 13 2002 - 04:20 AM

Not any more than your cell phone.
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#5 of 14 Craig Robertson

Craig Robertson

    Supporting Actor

  • 986 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 1999

Posted May 13 2002 - 04:38 AM

Quote:
Since many communities oppose the towers saying that the emitted radiation can cause cancer

that may be their concern, but they cannot legally use that as a way to block construction. the Telecommunications Act of 1996 specificly excludes it.
the ERP (effective radiated power) of a cell site is really fairly low, since the cells are designed to cover a relatively small area. the way the antennas are designed,you can actually have a lower signal strength close to the tower than farther away. think of it like a lighthouse, as you approach the structure, you drop under the beam of light and it becomes dimmer.

#6 of 14 Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer

  • 10,383 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted May 13 2002 - 04:45 AM

If the tower fell over on you, it would definitely cause a few health problems. Posted Image

There was a recent battle over erecting a cell tower in our city. A landowner wanted to rent some vacant land for a tower. The grounds for preventing the tower were not because of health concerns, but over the appearance of the tower in a mostly residential neighborhood. The City Council denied the tower, and are reworking the zoning ordinances to prevent this from happening in the future.

In our case, though, there is plenty of business and commercial district space to erect a tower, so the cell companies have no problem getting coverage in the area.

#7 of 14 Kevin P

Kevin P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,444 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 1999

Posted May 13 2002 - 04:55 AM

Quote:
If the tower fell over on you, it would definitely cause a few health problems.
The biggest health concern is when someone who's driving while talking on their cell phone runs into the tower! Posted Image

Seriously though, the emitted signal shouldn't be a health concern. You get more radiation when standing in front of a microwave, TV set or computer monitor, and the cell phone antenna right near your head is pelting you with more radiation then you'll ever experience from the tower.

KJP

#8 of 14 Danny R

Danny R

    Supporting Actor

  • 875 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2000

Posted May 13 2002 - 05:13 AM

The human body is filled with Carbon-Hydrogen bonds. These bonds can break if exposed to any light frequency shorter than that of visible light... ie ultraviolet light, x-rays, radio frequencies, etc. With enough exposure, our bodies can fail to repair the damage and cancer can result.

So yes, cell phone towers can hurt you. However you have to consider the amount of exposure you are getting. Simply standing outside is much more likely to give you cancer (skin cancer due to ultraviolet exposure) than living near a cell tower will, because the sun puts out far more radiation that reaches us than the towers do.
They found my psych results fit a certain profile. A certain "Moral flexibility" would be the best way to describe it....

#9 of 14 Kevin P

Kevin P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,444 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 18 1999

Posted May 13 2002 - 05:32 AM

Quote:
These bonds can break if exposed to any light frequency shorter than that of visible light... ie ultraviolet light, x-rays, radio frequencies, etc.
Actually, radio frequencies are a longer wavelength than visible light.

The electromagnetic spectrum includes, from longest wavelength to shortest: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, optical, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma-rays. Cell phones use frequencies in the radio waves spectrum. The most dangerous wavelengths are ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays, as you said, those shorter than visible light.

Exposure to strong EM signals can be harmful since they can cause heating, which is why microwave ovens are shielded (you'd cook yourself if you stood in front of one otherwise!), regardless of wavelength. But cell phone signals are too weak to cause this.

KJP

#10 of 14 Danny R

Danny R

    Supporting Actor

  • 875 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2000

Posted May 13 2002 - 05:41 AM

Thanks for the correction. For some reason I thought that radio was adjacent to ultraviolet.
They found my psych results fit a certain profile. A certain "Moral flexibility" would be the best way to describe it....

#11 of 14 Todd Hochard

Todd Hochard

    Screenwriter

  • 2,314 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 1999

Posted May 13 2002 - 10:00 AM

On the frequency scale, it goes RF, Microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma (generically speaking), from lowest to highest. Higher frequency energy tends to do more damage than lower (at a given power level).

Most new cell towers, running CDMA, operate at 1.8 or 1.9Ghz. The cell site output is typically a couple of watts, if that. Now, consider that for many of today's phones, they can't even maintain enough signal strength inside a house to keep a call, I think we have little to worry about. At least I hope so, since I've lived about 800 yards from one for the last eight years!Posted Image
It is likely in the milliwatt range or less by the time it reaches your large melon head.Posted Image Contrast that with your typical microwave running at 900-1000 watts (while you stand in front of it waiting for your lunch to heat up), or UHF HD stations running at one MILLION watts.

The whole NIMBY thing is interesting. If a company doesn't have good coverage in your neighborhood, they suck. If they try to put a tower to correct this, they suck. No win situation.

Consider this- if you live in a mountainous region, with a high concentration of granite around, you probably receive more gamma (damaging) radiation in a year, than you'll get in a lifetime from a cell tower one mile away, inside your house.

Food for thought. Twinkies are a 100x greater risk to the average American (myself includedPosted Image ).

Todd
I love to singa, about the moon-a, and the june-a, and the springa...
-Owl Jolson

#12 of 14 Craig Robertson

Craig Robertson

    Supporting Actor

  • 986 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 1999

Posted May 14 2002 - 05:03 AM

Quote:
likely in the milliwatt range or less


actually, a really hot signal sitting near the site would be in the -50dBm range, which is 50dB below 1mW. typical signal strength in good coverage area is -60 to -80dBm range.

#13 of 14 Todd Hochard

Todd Hochard

    Screenwriter

  • 2,314 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 1999

Posted May 14 2002 - 07:00 AM

Craig,

Gee, what business are you in??Posted Image I was totally guessing my figure for that (the gamma radiation figures are accurate- inadvertantly measured in the White Mountains of New Hampshire- oops!). So, power drops in half for every 3db drop, so that's .000007x1mW or 7nanowatts.

No wonder my Sprint PCS coverage stinks.Posted Image

Todd
I love to singa, about the moon-a, and the june-a, and the springa...
-Owl Jolson

#14 of 14 Craig Robertson

Craig Robertson

    Supporting Actor

  • 986 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 1999

Posted May 14 2002 - 10:13 AM

Quote:
No wonder my Sprint PCS coverage stinks.


one of the problems with 1900MHz is it is attenuated to a much greater degree by terrain and distance than 800MHz. the 1900MHz carriers need 3 to 4 times as many sites as the 800MHz carriers, and even then they still have a problem with building penetration.

Todd- good call on my line of work.Posted Image


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow