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)
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
But be prepared to find out that your apartment is considered unfit for living.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Darn it, all I can find is aluminum foil!
Curse you government! I see what you're doing!
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Alu-min-i-um, you insensitive colonial.
No worries: if it was unsafe, I am sure that the cellular industry would tell you.
Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll (Score:5, Informative)
The man who discovered aluminum in 1808, a British chemist named Humphrey Davy, first named it "alumium." When he published in 1812 he had renamed it to "aluminum," which is the name still used in America. So where did that extra "i" come from? Wikipedia has the answer.
'An anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."'
That's right. All of the haughtiness with which the British defend their extra syllable, all of the bloodshed spilled over the difference, and all of the mutual incomprehension that ensued is due to a change made against the discoverer's wishes based on the rant of an Anonymous Coward. If that isn't a successful troll I don't know what is.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
What you need are magnets! It's like how a motor works, but in reverse.
No, not like a dynamo. More like the deflector dish on the Enterprise.
Just don't cross the streams. Never cross the streams.
Unless wearing waders.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Informative)
see also Force Field Wireless [oninnovations.com] for paint additive, although you could also experiment with various metallic powders on your own.
Ditto Storm windows with metal frames and screens. Apparently prefinished flooring also contains metallic powder which can reduce wifi signals. The new double pane windows also have metallic coatings that can reduce wifi.
Normal cell phone reception would have to come from the side of the building opposite where the transmitters are located.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One protective paint is yshield.
http://www.yshield.com/ [yshield.com]
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though I'm skeptical that relatively low levels of microwave radiation could really be harmful, I thought I should point out that these metallic coatings or similar solutions do not absorb the radiation, they merely reflect it. Since complete coverage (floor, ceiling, windows, doors, etc) isn't realistic, you may easily reduce radiation overall but you might be allowing standing waves in certain locations, concentrating the radiation here and there, like hot spots in a microwave oven. An appartment is much bigger than a microwave oven, the walls are less flat, and there is more absorption etc. But the overall principle still applies to some degree. So I guess if I were worried enough about microwave radiation, still bought the apartment, but applied these reflective paints and such, then I'd also be worried about standing waves. Sniffing these out would be very time-consuming.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking of low level radiation, and specifically non-ionizing radiation like cell phones, popsci has an article [popsci.com] about a guy that is hypersensitive to it. The online article is four pages (I think the print article was 10-12) and it does cover a lot of ground, including arguments from both sides. I kinda skimmed over it, myself, but if you care about this sort of thing it may be worth a read.
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: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:If you are worried about it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Create a parabolic dish, so that you can nail some poor schmuck in jersey with roaming charges. (so poor that his cell phone charges for roaming)..
enjoy
Storm
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
Look on the bright side: if he really does die from the microwave radiation, he won't have to worry about resale value.
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:4, Funny)
But if he does, they are more likely to be mutants. (99% chance of them being bad mutations, but that .1% chance that he will be the father of the new master race....)
...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
Re:...and pick a better title... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually we made it against the law to remove/prevent building of cell-phone antennae based on medical arguments. Thank Congress.
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:...and pick a better title... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, being non-ionizing doesn't mean that it doesn't impart enough energy to have harmful effects. There are other harmful effects beyond having chemical bonds ruptured by EM fields. If the size of your body is near to or larger than a wavelength, your body will absorb some of the incident radiation. It heats your body. This is why microwave ovens have door interlocks. This is why people have DIED, cooked alive while working on microwave communication antennas.
My understanding is that cellphone systems aren't high power; you're likely to be safe. If you're really concerned, buy (about $300), rent, or borrow a field strength meter and find out.
Biology vs electronics (Score:3, Funny)
Also, recall that the power density drops by the square of the distance from the antenna. So, if you measure the power at one micron away from the antenna, it will be twice the strength you'd get if you measure it two microns away. Extend this out, and at 3 microns, you're down to 1/8th the power, 4 microns = 1/16th. At 20 feet, you should be all the way down to 1 / 3,716,121,600,000th the original power,
Re:Biology vs electronics (Score:4, Informative)
Nice! Except power density is expressed in watts per square METER. Not watts per square micron. So while your calculation suggests that 1 / 3,716,121,600,000th is a tiny number, there's a trillion square microns in a square meter. So while the power measured is a tiny amount of what you'd measure at one micron, it's not such a small number when measuring using meters.
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
Get a gun. (Score:5, Funny)
Ask the landlord to relocate the cell-phone towers.
This strategy is quite effective in dealing with obstinate landlords. I should know since I'm serving time for 1 count of voluntary manslaughter.
Re:Get a gun. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait... if you're serving time for voluntary manslaughter, that means your strategy is NOT effective, since obviously the landlord did not do what you wanted him to do (otherwise, why shoot him?).
But then again, you have a gun and you're willing to use it... I'm sure your strategy is the best strategy ever. No really.
...
Please don't hurt me.
Do you use a cell phone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this compared with your constant exposure to radiation while being inside a microwave oven of your 'killer apartment' is another exposure altogether. Besides all this - just thinking of possible even if unlikely danger is going to make him sick anyway. If that does not his girlfriend will. Oh wait we are on /. - forget it. Go on buy it!
Inverse square law (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dont buy it. You will worry yourself sick whatever we say.
Agreed.
Even if experts came to you in person and told you not to worry, chances are it would always be in the back of your mind. One of the things you want when you get a place is peace of mind.
I'm not a doctor and I do not worry about things like cellphones or WiFi access points; but having a cell antenna pointed at window from a few feet away would be dis concerning.
And as others already posted, if you ever plan on selling the place your customer base may have the same fears.
Sure if it's an incredible o
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:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Funny)
If he's buying it he won't have a landlord and he won't be a tenant, moron.
Re:If you are worried about it... (Score:5, Interesting)
You tried your best, but missed the relevant points, sorry to say:
The inverse-square actually depends on the directivity of the whole lot. A point source is fine, a laser isn't.
Therefore, the 'proximity' isn't good neither. Roughly, considering your side of the head to be flat and the phone a point on that plane, you get half of the energy into your brain. That's not convincing, to me, because that's easily half a watt of RF that seeps through my brains. If I put my phone 20 feet away (let's stick to scientific units: 6 m), the point source would seep around 1 watt through a surface of a sphere 4*pi*r*r, that is around 100 square meters. With the average head diameter being around 22 cm, the surface of the head through which the energy seeps is around pi*r*r, that is around 0.04 square meter. So you'd get around 1/100*0.04, that is 0.0004 watt of RF radiation. That wouldn't bug me at all.
But I wouldn't buy the place nevertheless: Firstly, you don't know the actual RF-wattage as produced. It can be significantly above 1 watt. How about 100 watt? And then, you don't know the directivity of that antenna. If it focuses the energy into your direction, and the main beam has a diameter of 1 m at 6 m of distance, it would blow 4 watt through your brain, and that 24/7. A parabola antenna is very good at concentrating energy. The place is not good at all. Fingers off, it might be totally harmless (see above), and it might be bad for your health (see below). Better safe than sorry!
That's my advice!
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
Tin foil suit.
Here's a tip... (Score:5, Funny)
If your microwave popcorn starts to pop before you turn the microwave on, it's probably not safe.
Insert small coil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're talking about cell phone here, not military-strength microwave radar signals :)
Would really astonish me if he could even light up a energy-saving lamp with the cell-phone signal.
These guys found the prefect solution... (Score:3, Funny)
...for your problem.
Right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1pv16G-liw [youtube.com]
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.
Buy it (Score:4, Funny)
1) Buy it. ...
2) Sue phone company
3)
4) profit!!!!!!!
Re:Buy it (Score:5, Funny)
3) win lawsuit
Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... (Score:4, Informative)
There is a product called Scotch-Tint that is a EMF reducer for windows. Combine that with some metallic fabrics on the walls on that side. www.lessemf.com is one of many suppliers for those products. I've used a conductive plastic from those folks to make a shielded rack for some RF sensitive equipment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is a product called Scotch-Tint that is a EMF reducer for windows.
Does it work on Linux?
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.
The facts about urban wireless towers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The facts about urban wireless towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The facts about urban wireless towers (Score:5, Informative)
But this assumes that the sector antennas are aimed directly at his prospective apartment unit. If they're not aimed at him, the power levels are far lower than just the bare
Now the original post mentioned "panel antennas" which are highly directional and typically used for backhaul. Those I'm almost certain aren't facing his apartment because that would kind of make those antennas useless since they need a clear line of sight.
cell tower next to village (Score:5, Funny)
Mobile company raised cell tower next to some village. Locals complained about health problems caused by this tower. When contacted cell company CEO replied:
- That's nothing. Wait and see what happens when we turn it on.
Re:cell tower next to village (Score:4, Interesting)
I've experienced a similar story but about a Wimax-tower.
The exact day that a Wimax-service went active in the neighbourhood of my girlfriends parents, a couple with "electro-allergy" in the area started having headaches and feeling nauseous.
The funny thing was, the tower had already been active at full power for several months while they measured coverage and did trial-runs.
For what it's worth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For what it's worth (Score:4, Informative)
If anyone is interested, here is a summary of the study in a presentation form (PDF):
COFAM study result http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/vanrongen_tno.pdf [who.int]
There are a lot of variables (Score:5, Informative)
I work with high power RF for a living. There are a lot of variables that contribute to non-ionizing radiation. Proximity, transmitter power, antenna radiation pattern, materials between you and the antenna, etc. There are ways to estimate the field intensity, but unless you know all the necessary factors, your calculations could be off by orders of magnitude. Having said that, the poster who commented that urban cells are lower power is generally correct, however, in a major metropolitan area, the cell can have many channels active at once, and the effect is cumulative. ANSI C95.2 is the safety standard covering this radiation. It's pretty technical, but the gist is the licensee (in this case the carrier) is responsible for making sure they don't cook the public.
The carrier must certify to the FCC that there are no publicly accessible areas that receive unsafe RF fields. The exact number varies by frequency, but generally there are two levels specified, one for publicly accessible areas and another for areas where personnel who have been trained in RF can work in levels above the public ones. These areas are normally calculated by the carrier prior to installation and they won't install if there's any chance they might exceed the safe levels.
As an example, I did an RF survey at one location where there was a multiple-transmitter FM antenna installed on top of a building that was across the street from another taller building. We had three FM broadcast transmitters operating on this antenna with about 250 kilowatts of radiated power, and the measured levels in the building across the street were not over the limits for public access. This was about 150 feet horizontally from the antenna. The solar coating on the building's glass stopped enough RF that it wasn't a problem.
If you want to measure it yourself, there are some inexpensive meters that are pretty accurate that will give you an indication of how much RF you're seeing. The one I have is this one: http://www.trifield.com/TrifieldMeter.htm It's about $150. I've seen these for sale at Fry's.
I have calibrated mine against a $5000 Narda commercial RF radiation meter and it's pretty close, certainly close enough for a "go/no-go" test which is what I use it for.
Re: (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.
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...
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...
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Well (Score:3, Funny)
Your first hint should be that the apartment is for sale because everyone in it died of leukemia...
Easy and cheap solution: (Score:3, Informative)
If there isn’t a window on that side where the panels are, just get some wallpaper that filters them. You know: Tinfoil hat style. (Well, usually some kind of wireframe suffices, if it’s e.g. 1/3 smaller than the waves.)
But if you want to know EXACTLY, you can always find out the energy (=frequency) of the radiation, and compare it against the bonding energy of e.g. proteins in your body (keyword Van-der-Waals bond) and others. But be aware that the quantum physics of this is often counterintuitive.
Then you don’t have to rely on biased tests or people telling you their bias, but know it yourself.
From what I remember, microwaves can only create 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius of heating in the body. So less than (the infrared in) sunlight, but deeper penetrating.
Or in simple terms: If you fear microwaves, you should have more fear of sunlight, as it’s much stronger. :)
Buyer's Market (Score:5, Informative)
Probably fine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No, he's not being a jackass (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No, he's not being a jackass (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC enforces on a case-by-case basis. Unless someone has turned this situation (this SPECIFIC apartment being this close to a transmitting antenna) to the FCC, then chances are that they have no idea the situation even exists.
Most urabn cell phone towers have a 20W average power (100W in rural areas), since they want a large coverage area the gain will only be 3dB (parabolic dish 25 dB gain) at 6 meters with a 100W power source and 25dB of gain the power density is 6.7718 mW/cm2 using typical numbers 20W 3dB 6 meters the power density is 0.0086 mW/cm2 the "safe exposure level" for 2.4 GHz as defined by national association for amerature radio is 30 mW/cm2 for uncontrolled and 100 mW/cm2 for controlled. A cell phone with 3W 2.2dB of gain (diapole) at 1 inch would have a power density of 61.4108 mW/cm2.
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.
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:
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:5, Informative)
Is that why it has been observed that children living under power lines had a 70% increased risk of leukemia? [newscientist.com]? Is that why DDT has been sprayed directly onto people as a standard anti-mosquito practice? [wikipedia.org]. Is that why asbestos has been used extensively as an insulator and structural material? [wikipedia.org] Is that why lead paint has been the standard paint for home renovation and art? [wikipedia.org] Is that why gasoline is carcinogenic? [wikipedia.org] Is that why wet Portland cement causes serious health problems which include severe burns that damage nerves? [osha.gov]
Just because something is banal, widely used and is seen as an accepted practice it doesn't mean that it is perfectly safe and free from any nasty side effects. History has a pretty long damning list of cases where the dangers are only known after the stuff that causes them is widely deployed.
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:4, Informative)
The studies that found a higher risk of leukemia in children didn't control for family income or any other social factors. It was correlation which isn't particularly useful
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:5, Informative)
Is that why it has been observed that children living under power lines had a 70% increased risk of leukemia?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html [quackwatch.org]
Is that why DDT has been sprayed directly onto people as a standard anti-mosquito practice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria [wikipedia.org]
History has a pretty long damning list of cases where the dangers are only known after the stuff that causes them is widely deployed.
So your solution is .... avoid everything? How much does it cost to live in a clean-room, anyway?
Just out of curiosity, I gotta ask ... why do you hate science?
Re: (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
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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:4, Informative)
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it's not worth it to save those kids from malaria, at the expense of the Bald Eagle... in Africa... where bald eagles are...
You're obviously talking about two different instances of banning DDT... but it's worth noting that the GP is full of shit and DDT is still used actively to combat malaria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#DDT_use_against_malaria [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:5, Informative)
No, you are not being a jackass. It is far better to ask questions and be INFORMED than make assumptions that might not be true.
As an Extra class amateur radio operator licensee I can tell you that the FCC considers exposure to RF radiation a significant risk. To obtain an amateur radio license and to be granted greater privileges, tests are given and several questions pertain to safe exposure limits. While I would doubt that the antenna poses a hazard, for your own peace of mind there is some homework you must do, questions you must ask of the company that owns the antenna and possibly the FCC.
Is the antenna used for receiving, transmitting or both? Is the antenna directional? What kind of gain does the antenna exhibit? What does the energy distribution look like? Are you able to see a site evaluation? (the FCC might have that on record) Find out the name of the company that owns the antenna and ask these question.
Many systems use separate antennas for receiving and transmitting. Doing so allows the antenna to be optimized for the job. It is quite possible that the antenna in question is used purely for reception of the cell signals from another tower. In that case the antenna poses no risk what so ever.
If the antenna is used for transmission of microwave signals a whole new can of worms is opened and RF exposure must be considered. RF radiation exposure limits are divided into two categories, a controlled environment and an uncontrolled environment. Basically, these two categories refer to the exposure limits of people working with the equipment and the general public. Several things are considered when looking at RF exposure limits; antenna type, power delivered to the antenna and the effective power radiated. A highly directional antenna can direct the input wattage into a very narrow beam called a lobe, effectively amplifying the signal in that direction. So a signal of 200 watts can effectively become a signal of much higher strength depending upon the gain of the antenna. One of the advantages of this is that the signal to the sides of the main lobe is extremely weak. From a safety stand point, only something directly in the path of the lobe is being exposed to radiation.
Again, ask the questions I gave to you earlier of an electrical engineer working at the company owing the antenna. Make an appointment to meet at the site of the apartment. The FCC requires they keep detailed information available on their systems just for answering this type of issue.
Regards,
W2TKW
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:5, Informative)
Most consumer devices run at under 5 watts.
Amateur radio operators have been using devices that can put out 5 to 1500 watts since the 1930s (possibly earlier)
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:5, Funny)
Amateur radio operators have been using devices that can put out 5 to 1500 watts since the 1930s (possibly earlier)
Yeah, and look at what all that radiation has done to them. It's turned them into hams.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...and once transmitting at more than 50W, HAMs must conduct a station evaluation to make sure no excessive fields pose a hazard to humans or animals, according to FCC rules. Also, see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html [fcc.gov]. When considering these antennae, also consider that they are likely to be very high duty cycle and directional (rather than omnidirectional) which increases the radiation density. When using directional antennae with 2.4 GHz Wifi, you're limited to tens of milliwatts or even less,
Re:Yes, you are being a jackass (Score:4, Informative)
When using directional antennae with 2.4 GHz Wifi, you're limited to tens of milliwatts or even less, depending on the gain.
Last time I checked Ham's are authorized 1500 watts @2.4Ghz. They just need to conduct the safety evaluation. Now meeting the safety requirements with a 24dbi dish might prove difficult... But if you can, you're good to go. (yes, I'm serious, think morse code via moon bounce...)
Re:I know what hams are (Score:4, Informative)
You are confused, total ham bandwidth is miniscule. The entity with the properties you describe is the U.S. military.
Re:not expensive to use wire mesh (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there any laws against passive shielding inside your flat? After all, you could simply put standard metal office furniture inside your flat, and that would cause massive interference, too. I'd say, if the phone company doesn't want the signal to be blocked by whatever is inside a flat, it should put the tower somewhere where it won't be blocked by something inside a flat.
Re:not expensive to use wire mesh (Score:5, Interesting)
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). They are supposed to be placed in such a manner that they are clear of buildings and physical obstructions. Hence the reason they are almost always on a small tower above a roof top. One thing, though - if you shield your place from these frequencies, you won't be able to use your cell phone at all while at home. You *can* turn your house into a giant Faraday cage. But expect it to act like one as well. You likely also won't be able to use your radio or HDTV over the air. Nothing comes in means nothing gets out as well. (OTOH, Wi-fi in home would be secure - heh)
Also, the refit won't be cheap. That Scotchtint runs about $1000 for a 60"x100ft roll. EMI resistant mesh for the walls generally runs the same. Generally you have to re-plaster or put another thin layer of drywall over top of it, which is factored into that price. And of course, it has to be installed properly. At that range(feet vs hundreds of feet) it will generate a significant amount of current.
Possible? Of course. But in today's world, being without tv, radio, wireless, and so on in such a place in NYC would be horrendous. In fact, trying to sell a place that you purposely turned into that would probably make it just as hard to resell as if you did nothing at all. I'd just keep looking. Maybe there's a similar place a block or two over?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The signal power will reduce by the cube of distance from the masts
Square of the distance, actually.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
who would pay for such a study? (Score:3, Informative)
And if the results were unfavorable, what then?
Here's a recent article on the hazards of transient electromagnetic fields, such as those created by compact fluorescent light bulbs:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This study is useless.
The authors don't realize any if not most laptop power supplies use direct conversion, the transformer is gone. Ballasts are a feature of nearly every flourscent light, have been for decades. 'Energy-efficient' is not the distinguishing factor for these transformers.
Low-power DC-DC convertors have been in common use for consumer electronics since the 70s, especially in anything with a vacuum-flourescent display; VCRs, microwave ovens, radio-alarm clocks, your car.
This article is, IMH
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again, though, this is just another anecdote too, until you loo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Chicken wire is too coarse for microwave.
People who build these things use much finer mesh; take a look [ramayes.com].