Killer Apartment Vs. Persistent Microwave Exposure? 791
An anonymous reader writes "I am considering buying a penthouse apartment in Manhattan that happens to be about twenty feet away from a pair of panel antennas belonging to a major cellular carrier. The antennas are on roughly the same plane as the apartment and point in its direction. I have sifted through a lot of information online about cell towers, most of which suggest that the radiation they emit is low-level and benign. Most of this information, however, seems to concern ground-level exposure at non-regular intervals. My question to Slashdot is: should the prospect of persistent exposure to microwave radiation from this pair of antennas sitting twenty feet from where I rest my head worry me? Am I just being a jackass? Can I, perhaps, line the walls of the place with a tight metal mesh and thereby deflect the radiation? My background is in computer engineering — I am not particularly knowledgeable about the physics of devices such as these. Please help me make an enlightened decision."
If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd pass (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't risk living there.
As far as I know (and I'm no expert, just good at googling) , the radiation levels from antennas are relatively safe about 3-5 meters away from them but depending on the type of antenna their beam can kind of focused in one direction so that 3-5 meters estimation could mean a measurement ouside the beam direction and if the apartment is inside the beam the radiation could be above safe levels. For example, I've heard that in my country, if you live on the last floor of a building and an antenna is above, the antenna must be on a pole at least 2-2.5 meters high so that distance between the apartments below and the emitter is around 3 meters.
Cellphone antennas would not be uni-directional so there shouldn't be any focused beam or whatever it's called but who knows what other antennas will be installed in the future on the same pole.
So from a radiation point of view you may be safe, but you never know how sensitive you are or how sensitive your family / children etc will be.
Second, while you may not care so much, the property will be harder to sell in the future because of that antenna.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, if you are worried consider that future buyers may also be worried. Unless you plan to either die in the apartment or leave it to your children, resale ability and ease of resale may be things you wish to consider.
Every visitor will ask (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you get some information from /. and you buy it, you will need to explain that it's safe to every visitor who notices these antennas.
For what it's worth (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you use a cell phone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The facts about urban wireless towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:recent cellphone radiation reports (Score:5, Insightful)
And then fail utterly to find a controlled study that shows repeatable results.
Lets make this clear, in over fifty years of trying nobody and I repeat nobody has yet managed to do a REPEATABLE study that shows harmful effects of low level non-ionizing radiation.
The key factor here is REPEATABLE. If it cannot be repeated it is just a meaningless statistical fluke.
Normally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally I wouldn't worry at all.
But the fact that,
1) It's only 20 feet away,
2) It's in the same plane as you, and,
3) It's pointed AT you...
That worries me some more. Obviously you want to talk to someone who really knows this stuff, and can also measure the EM radiation in your future apt.
I also assume its a 'killer' apt because its in a great location and its CHEAP. And of course, its CHEAP because everyone is scared of the antenna pointing right at it...
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:5, Insightful)
If exposure to asbestos was of any danger to the public health,[sic] there is no way you would be seeing asbestos anywhere near apartment complexes.
I heard... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, there's alot of sentiment that EM radiation has no effect on DNA, etc etc. But I had read somewhere that people that live near power lines out in the country seem to develop extremely rare forms of cancer at a higher percentage than people living in the city. Of course, coincidence is not causation.
With that in mind, do I exclusively use a cell phone? Yes. I just don't know if I'd want to live next to a tower that might focus EM radiation right at my room while I sleep 8 hours a day.
Re:There are a lot of variables (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the solar coatings used on windows are electtrically conductive.
This was probably why the glass was absorbing a lot of the FM radio energy.
Do you know this expression? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are probably right, because it would need a conspiracy to hide research results. But... remember the tobacco companies' bought research.
A while ago, I learned a new expression which I've never seen in my native Swedish media -- which do say something about at least Sweden's political trustworthiness:
...and pick a better title... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Killer Apartment Vs. Persistent Microwave Exposure"?
If the 'persistent microwave exposure' turns out a bad thing, the place may indeed be a 'killer apartment'... ;-)
Re re-saleability - even if you plan to stay there in the long term, you should still make your offer reflect the antennae... ...after all, your current vendor already faces a lower sellability on the place because of the antennae. Bid lower and leave it to the vendor to decide whether and how much more time to invest to try and line up another buyer...
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Should this be +Funny? Because in 'Killer Apartment vs Microwave Exposure', Microwave Exposure is presumably the bad thing, so 'Killer Apartment' must be the good thing, which could be an expression for 'Really Really Great Apartment'. >.>
Re:I heard... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can afford (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute, you can afford a penthouse apt in manhattan, but you are unsure about the safety of living next to a cellular antenna array that (to use your words) is pointed right at your apartment, so you turn to Slashdot? I don't believe it.
I also don't believe that any company would install a cellular antenna array and point it at a structure - it would seriously impact the coverage area of the antenna, and they could probably just as easily installed the antenna on a taller building and avoid interference...
Re:It's not microwave (Score:3, Insightful)
Telcos use microwave antennas to get carry phone lines over great distances for lower cost than fiber, but they would never point one at a building, as that would defeat the line-of-sight nature of their operation.
No, you're being too trusting. (Score:1, Insightful)
If exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing these antennas anywhere near apartment complexes, the FCC or whatever is the appropriate authority is in your country would be all over this. On the contrary, you should be happy that your apartment is going to get some pretty damn good coverage :)
You have waaaaaayyyy too much trust in Government; their competence, their inability to be swayed by industry, and that they're human too.
Case: Tuna. The Tuna industry made sure that the FDA said that appropriate levels of mercury in food were above what is in Tuna - even though in reality, Tune has too much mercury in it. You will find no reference to this because everyone at the FDA who was party to it is too afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs.
When it comes to toxicity, always go to outside sources. Then you run into the problem with organizations with their own agendas.
It really sucks being a consumer.
Re:...and pick a better title... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...and pick a better title... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are assuming that any other potential buyers even notice the cell towers. I garauntee about 90% of them see that they have full bars on their phone and think no further of it.
-Steve
Re:The facts about urban wireless towers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do you use a cell phone? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd still recommend to buy the apartment. But not for living in it yourself. Instead rent it to the MAFIAA...
Re:The basic physics... (Score:3, Insightful)
The basic physics say you're more than okay.
Very well. Expose yourself to direct sunlight 24/7 and let's see how long it takes for you to get skin cancer.
Just because "the basic physics" you mention in your claim point to there being less energy involved than sunlight, this does not eliminate the possibility of risk - especially when sunlight is a KNOWN [intelihealth.com]carcinogen [cancer.gov].
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a choice between DDT and Malaria the submitter is facing here.
It's persistent microwave exposure vs not living in a kickass apartment (see the original title).
What would be relevant is how much his risk would increase by. I don't know what it is but I would say it's not zero.
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:3, Insightful)
He responded to you the way he did because you came off as a bit of a paranoid nutjob.
Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"? The OP claimed that, somehow, something which isn't regulated and widely available and extensively used is automatically unquestionably safe, to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems. There is no conspiracy anywhere to be seen and everything I've mentioned is publicly known.
And for the record, New Scientist is not what you would call a highly reputable organization. Linking them was your first mistake, after that few people will take you seriously.
If you feel you have a problem with the statement then you should demonstrate why it is false. If it isn't possible to claim that a statement is false then, no matter how fiercely you attack the messenger, the validity of it's message will stay invariably true.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:2, Insightful)
(steps into of a time machine)
(steps out in the 1960s)
"There have been numerous studies worldwide about the effects of these cigarettes, and so far I don't think there is any proof of ill-effects. On the contrary many of our studies show cigarettes to be beneficial, and 4 out of 5 doctors agree that our brand is the best."
Perhaps towers ARE safe for most people under normal circumstances, but that doesn't mean they are always safe, especially if they are only a few feet away. Sailors in the navy are forbidden from being on the foredeck when the Aegis Radar is operating, because it will cook their bodies like a hot dog in a microwave. Antennas DO have the ability to damage human tissues, just as surely as one cigarette will not kill you, but over time the accumulated damage of repeated use means a shorter life.
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:1, Insightful)
if sigarets would be harmfull, they wouldn't be for sale any more ? ... health is not a priority
As long as there's (loads of) money involved,
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're probably right, since they've studied the hell out of the effects of EMF radiation for years and years and found no correlation between EMF and illness. There's nothing special about microwave frequencies, but people think there is because microwave ovens cook meat.
Here's a study of one: My dad, like hundreds of thousands like him was an electrical lineman for forty years. He worked with alternating current next to voltages up to 90 kv. He couldn't wear a wristwatch because the magnetic fields would magnetize that steel parts, which stopped working.
He'll be 79 this June, and he still goes square dancing every Saturday.
He did get some cancers from radiation -- solar radiation, not EMF. Working outside for forty years gave him some minor skin cancers on his face. The big fusion generator in the sky puts your puny EMF to shame. Worried about cancer? Stay out of the sun and don't smoke cigarettes.
Re:not expensive to use wire mesh (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC may have something to say about that though. If he is close enough, his mesh may block enough of the signal to put the antenna out of use.
Any passive blocking that he puts on the walls or windows as an owner is something that he can't he held liable for(as opposed to active blocking or putting up a billboard or similar). I'd love to see the judge's face when the cell phone company tries to explain how their antenna requires his apartment to be non-shielded to operate properly(ie - we need to beam the signal *through* it because we put it in a bad location).
Good point. Also if it does become useless and they relocate it you probably increased the resale value.
But in today's world, being without tv, radio, wireless, and so on in such a place in NYC would be horrendous.
maybe not if you have cable.
Something doesn't seem right about this story. (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not make sense that a cell phone tower's panel antenna would be blasting straight into an adjacent apartment as the article poster describes. This is counterproductive to achieving good coverage from that antenna.
The article poster says "roughly" on the same plane, how is "roughly" defined? Those panel antennas can have some pretty significant directionality in the vertical plane, such that even if "roughly" means "one or two stories difference", the antennas are probably shooting OVER this apartment and not INTO it. Especially since, as I said before, it makes no sense for these antennas to be shooting into it.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look on the bright side: if he really does die from the microwave radiation, he won't have to worry about resale value.
Even better: If he buys the apartment, he may never have to worry about having children.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry until you have had a radiation team doing measurements in your apartment and found out that the levels are near what's considered unhealthy.
Time, distance and shielding are your friends. But that's really immaterial here, the perception is what you have to consider. Not just for yourself but when you want to sell it sometime in the future.
I can go on for hours about why it's safe to live under power lines, but if it's your house, it's not going to sell. I'd take a pass. Not because of the microwaves, but because of the resale issues.
Re:For what it's worth (Score:3, Insightful)
What significance rating was it? Two sigmas or three? 1 in 20 two-sigma "statistically significant" findings are spurious, after all - and any roleplayer knows that if you roll enough d20s, you're going to get a few critical hits.
Re:...and pick a better title... (Score:3, Insightful)
Get some lead (or some other metal) shielding. Perhaps if everyone did this (if they lived near a tower) then, health risk or not, the towers might be moved elsewhere.
I've heard that paint used to be made with lead. Just locate some of this old lead-based paint, and use that to re-paint the walls of your apartment. It's not like you're going to be keeping goats in there.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...and pick a better title... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't impart enough energy to have harmful effects.
So yeah, thank you, Congress. At least you get things right occasionally.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to Jesusland, where killing is OK, but kicking someone's very naughty part is not.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy in the article only develops symptoms of exposure when he realizes he's being exposed. He's a paranoid lunatic to a severe degree. It is probable that medication will help him, but not until he accepts that the problem is internal not external in nature.
Re:...and pick a better title... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can also guarantee that you're a dumbass.
Why do you think it's such a "kickass apartment"? If it were ordinarily in his price range it wouldn't look much different than the other apartments in that price range. But this one is kickass, suggesting that the price is depressed.
Now, what do you think could depress the price of a kickass apartment sitting next to a pair of cell phone antennas?
I guarantee at least 50% of people see the towers and don't even bother looking at the apartment. It's not really a question of whether you think it's dangerous, it's how strongly you believe it's safe. If there is any hesitation at all people generally don't even bother to consider the place.
Of course, none of them care enough to sit down and work out the physics of it, and come to the conclusion that they get significantly more radiation when they stick their phone up to their ears. That doesn't matter, they see radio towers of any kind, and people don't want to be near them. At the very least it's "better safe than sorry", especially given the number of times the experts have been wrong. Better to not take the chance.
Thus, houses in these types of situations typically go for much less than similar houses further away for radio towers or power lines.
Frustrate the owners of the MW towers (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, why did the previous owner leave the apartment? Died of brain cancer?
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:3, Insightful)
You just demonstrated why debating with non-nerds is so annoying to nerds.
The original person is pointing out that there is a fallacy in saying that it is widespread and thus safe... he is pointing out the fallacy of appeal to the majority. As evidence he presents certain premises.
The next person points out that the premises used are flawed. Things that are widely in use are widely in use typically because they're preventing something significantly worse than any side-effect that may result from their use.
DDT was preventing Malaria. Asbestos was preventing fires. Vaccines are preventing horrible debilitating diseases. DDT is still used to prevent Malaria where it is a big deal (which is not the USA). Asbestos is still used in certain cases. Asbestos is generally safe, until it breaks down into fibers that get into the lungs. As it is created with a binding agent, this typically only happens once it gets wet and deteriorates. And vaccines... screw autism... you could get an INFECTION at the injection site that if untreated could lead to your death, but we can treat all the side-effects a heck of a lot better than we can treat mumps measles and rubella. And if you don't remember how bad these diseases are if you get them, you should ask an person around age 50, I think would do right now.
The point here, is that a lot of pseudoscience gets its brazenness behind "well, people thought plate techtonics was crazy when it was first proposed." (and it actually was as originally proposed... he was using it to explain the Biblical Flood)
There is a common habit for people to jump on the bandwagon of fear-mongering because the other fear-mongers point out other cases where things went wrong, but they don't point out the millions of times where things DIDN'T went wrong.
When the first trains were making it up to 25-mph, Scientific American reported that people were concerned that it would suck all the air out of the train and suffocate passengers.
Fear-mongering just to fear-monger is WORTHLESS, and he was trying to point that out. He didn't attack the root of the original argument about the safety of XY, because the other guy didn't make an argument about the safety of XY, but rather made the argument that A, B, and C turned out bad, so we should avoid XY... So he points out that the same analogous argument can be made FOR EVERYTHING... so if one wants to make a REAL logical argument based on it, the only logical conclusion is absurdity. (reductio ad absurdium)
Which brings me to ask... why did you hate doing logic PROPERLY?
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... yeah. He's not sensitive to the guy's cellphone before the call, even though that phone is transmitting beacons all the time, to remain in contact with the local tower. Sounds like a nut. I did read the article, but it was just about this guy, and didn't offer any real critique. They should have sent a reporter out there with a 2-something GHz "white noise" generator in hit pocket. Or better still, do a real double-blind test. If the guy's actually sensitive to higher UHF spectrum RFI, that would be pretty interesting. Far as anyone knows, this stuff can't be detected by biological critters in any way. Some critters do, however, detect magnetic fields.