NEW MOBILE PHONE TOWERS

... and that is a load of rubbish I can tell you (I'm using polite words). I've done a lot of work in the past on non-ionising emission limits. The whole field of RF exposure, safety, absorption etc is infested with people from the loony new-age fringes[1]. Look up stories about WiFi access points in schools and you will see what I mean.

Its all quite simple really. There is no evidence of RF signals inducing health problems with the exception of really high powers like that seen in microwave ovens or near to high power transmitting equipment. Read the "Stewart Report" or the ICNIRP recommendations for occupational and non-occupational exposure to electrical and RF fields[2].

There has been a lot of research done on this. The only thing they have been able to measure is a slight thermal heating of the affected part of the body, so they took that figure, reduced it by an order of magnitude and based the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits on that. These limits have been used in the EU in drawing up regulations for cellphones. You will get more heating of your head from the sun walking from the car park to the shopping centre.

So where does this all get you? The simple answer is if you are more than a couple of meters away from the front of the transmitting antenna on a cell site you will be below the limit (its an inverse square law). If you are above or below the antenna the distance is much lower.

Having a cell site near you means that your cellphone (remember it is a transmitter too) will reduce its transmit power dramatically and reduce the power it shoves into your head. So in short having a cellphone site near you will reduce your exposure - not increase it. Your mobile broadband will work much faster too.

A good rant always makes me feel better :-)

Andy

[1] Anyone want to buy a Qlink and feel better? See http://www.badscience.net/category/qlink/

[2] See http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

dear vignale are u agreed with these regulations

DISTANCES CN BE COVERED WITH LOVE

DISTANCES CN BE COVERED WITH LOVE

having problem with your fingers or keyboard??

I haven't seen any violations here at all. Please give details of where these violations are (And please do not shout, using caps lock)

Are you an engineer or architect?

I SHALL NOT COMPLAIN ,HOPEFULLY I SHALL GET GOOD RESULT AT THIS DISTANCE

DISTANCES CN BE COVERED WITH LOVE

it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.

THEN U WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT BAD SIGNAL.

Aana free, jaana free,

Pakde gaye tho khana free.

As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile network, towns and cities have seen the number of towers increase sharply, including 3G towers which work with larger bandwidths.[citation needed] Many measurements and experiments have shown that transmitter power levels are relatively low - in modern 2G antennas, in the range of 20 to 100 W, with the 3G towers causing less radiation than the already present 2G network. An average radiation power output of 3 W is used. The use of 'micro-cell geometries' (large numbers of transmitters in an area but with each individual transmitter running very low power) inside cities has decreased the amount of radiated power even further.[citation needed] The radiation exposure from these antennas, while generally low level, is continuous[citation needed].

Experts consulted by France consider it is mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 meters.[60] This recommendation was modified in 2003[61] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.[

DISTANCES CN BE COVERED WITH LOVE

according to you what are the rules and international standard they missed out?

Aana free, jaana free,

Pakde gaye tho khana free.

ok no problem..