Does having cell phone towers near schools, parks, and your home concern you?

That's a cell phone. The question was about cordless conventional phones. Cell phones have to check in more often, because people move around with them. The typical bit of bleeping you describe, "da da dit, da da dit, da da dit", is typical for GSM phones responding to the cell.

You won't normally hear this with cordless conventional phones, as they are very low power and seldom talk back unless being used.

Tom

 

Only if they use the towers to connect while driving and texting.

 

Do any of the people who use this argument apply the same standard to RF devices in their hands, in their pockets, on their desktops, or in the classroom (e.g. Wifi access points)? To electricity in the classroom or in their home? Or to motor vehicle transport to and from school?

 

Well then you can do a simple experiment that will should be good enough for those ignorant of math and physics and like to listen to daytime talk shows.

Go rent a spectrum analyzer, invite those concerned. Have them show up, and turn it on. You will see giant spikes at your FM radio bands, probably big big spikes at 2.4GHz, 900Mhz, and a few other "open" frequencies. You will also see relatively large spikes at 800Mhz, 850Mhz, 1.1GHz, 1.8GHz, 1.9GHz, and others depending on who has what cell phone carrier. Then go down to the park, plug it in somewhere and measure what you see. You will see... nothing nothing different than you saw before. The radiated waves from your cell phones will mask out the limited signals from the cell tower.

People don't understand how cell phones work in general, and assume that they need giant transmitters and receivers sending out megawatts of power. But they are incredible pieces of technology and it takes nearly no power at all.

 

Because more emitters means smaller cells and lower power output. If you are worried about safety, it's safer to have many low power cells than a few high power ones.

Tom

 

Those of you that are concerned with possible RF harm to yourselves, take a look at a "Micro Cell" for your home and car such as:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/product/B0014KOB6Y?tag=priuschatcom-20 amplifying repeater will give you a stronger cell phone signal in your house/car which will tell your cell phone to lower it's output power.

JeffD

 

But if I use a micro-cell, I'll have to turn up the heat in my office.

:flame:

Tom

 

Don't overlook the obvious. Each cell can only handle so many phones. Towers go up often and close where the cell phone density is high. Fastest way to prevent the tower is campaign for every kid in the school not to phone either home or their homies.

 

It's a fun comment when everyone has enough sense to read between the lines.

 

I don't think there are any people still living that were within 500 feet of a cell tower. Be very, very afraid.


iPad ?

 

Cell phones break up the information transfer into small low power cells. This in in marked contrast to full power TV stations that use a single 'cell' running at very high power.

Burritos: Are any of these other people concerned about UHF television signals? If not, why not? Is this school within 10 miles of a TV tower?

Near the heart of Seattle, there are 4 full power TV stations on 3 towers on top of Queen Anne hill, a fairly high density residential neighborhood. Most have been operating about 60-ish years, though most of that was the original VHF instead of the modern UHF. Each now broadcasts with an ERP at or near 1,000,000 watts. Following the inverse-square law, a 100 watt cell tower at 500 feet should be similar to a single one of these TV transmitters at almost 10 miles.

But there are four of these transmitters, within a few blocks of each other in a high density residential neighborhood. Even though I don't live inside the Seattle city limits, I should be getting more RF from these combined stations than the students should be getting from the proposed cell tower under discussion.

And there are plenty more TV transmitters, outside the city limits on surrounding hills. A number of them have now, or had before the digital TV transition three years ago, ERPs of 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 watts each.

So why are the concerned people looking only at cell phone towers, not TV transmitters?

 

Would that be a microcell, or a femtocell??
I have one in my house(!)......and I'm normal-----right?????

 

not sure ... according to al the dods....... I would say radiowavehyperactive.......

 

Because they're willing to risk any horrible disfiguring illness, if the only way to prevent it is to give up watching TV.

Fortunately, there is no health effect of radio/tv waves. Unfortunately, watching TV makes people stupid, and we are already a terminally stupid country.

If I am elected President, I'll issue an emergency executive decree shutting down all television broadcasting, including all forms of cable & satellite TV and TV broadcasting via the internet.

 

We can't figure with certainty how whales travel migratory routs. Obviously they're very in tune with the forces that permit such navigation. We can't figure how honey bees come and go with certainty. Similarly, bees are quite sensitive to elements within their environment. Many of the bee keeper neighbors of ours in Montana (besides lots of other states) wonder why fewer and fewer bees come back home. The decreasing bee scenario began accelerating a couple decades ago. I'm hoping (as do many others) there's no connection between the proliferation of cel towers and fewer and fewer honey bees. I'm just saying .... I hope it's not RFI. Could be pesticides. Could be bacteria. But I know no one's going to give up there smart phones.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder[/ame]

.

 

No, you're thinking of Fox "News", on cable TV.

 

No worries here.