The nearest one to me is at the end of the poshest street in the area. Can just see the residents paying for it. It's one of those 'open' ones and there always seems to be someone shouting in it when you go past. Probably at BT about their phone not working.
A transmitter emitting radiation that the body might not be totally opaque to?
The point should be about the overall effect on tissue and the necessary power for a base station to replicate the effect of a mobile phone, not on where the radiation is strongest. *My point* is about the fact that the inverse square law is being used inappropriately, not the precise figures being thrown about.
Yeah that's a lot, but when you've got big error factors floating around my point is that we're actually agreeing in that I'll allow that a megawatt transmitter might necessary, but that I also think a lower power transmitter is plausible, but you seem to want to insist that using the inverse square law in inappropriate circumstances gives exactly the right figure.
I'm not going to bother arguing over any more trivial details of how much power you'd need as I've seen no evidence that phones are a risk and this is all getting a bit tedious. My point stands that the post I originally replied to had a naive calculation in it.
I'll retract the suggestion that you want to use it inappropriately, as your calculation is right within its assumptions - it's the original that is out. However, I'll point out that the first figure was 1MW, and you now argue for 1.6MW, and I think the range could cover anything from tens to thousands of kW.
If you put something up without checking with the authorities and the medical facts at the time, you could be liable, however I'm not aware of a single successful case in the UK of someone being prosecuted for doing something that turned out to be dangerous when it had previously been scientifically tested and rated _by the government_ as safe. No judge would ever rule such - it's basically retrospective application, which goes against one of the basic tenets of British law.
Once a strong body of scientific opinion states that something is potentially unsafe then the liability could be difficult, but that is not the case at present.
It doesn't matter. It's at its strongest point at that part of the body. In order to achieve the same strength at distance you would need a massively powerful transmitter.
It may be inappropriate (you still haven't explained why, btw) but (as in most things regarding RF signal modelling) it's going to be "close enough".
I think it's a close enough approximation to be sure that (even though 1.6MW is probably over the top) it's going to be in the right ball-park. I certainly don't think even 100kW would come close.
Perhaps that should have been "aerial wire" antenna - I was not implying that there was a recognised TLA in use for the above!
I can't off the top of my head, although I have read on several occations that the use of the word "Aerial" to describe the bit of RF kit, was derrived from the more usual meaning of the word "aerial" due to its use in "aerial wire" (i.e. a wire held aloft in "the air").
(FWIW, various bits of the current day Marconi are clients of ours, and hence I have spent a fair amount of time with some of their RF/Hardware guys. IIRC a number of them have also handed down said folklaw)
I suppose an article like this:-
formatting link
the terminology as it would have once been: "They brought with them two balloons, hydrogen equipment, and six kites for the purpose of keeping a receiving aerial wire aloft. The group were quite experienced kite fliers because they had used this method of supporting antennas in previous experiments"
It had more naive calculations and assumptions in it than you've spotted. Didn't you notice that for ease of mental arithmetic all the assumed figures were rounded to the nearest power of ten? But the point you've failed to notice, which was the main point the post was intended to show, was that given that the inverse square(ish) law is operating here, all these nitpickings are irrelevant because you can swamp them by a simple minor change of distance.
-- Chris Malcolm snipped-for-privacy@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
Yes quite right. Most people would be scared shitless if when they went for a scan they knew it was Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging instead of the more acceptable MRI;))
yeah. i know a bit about b12, having been vegan for 14 years (i've been eating fish for the last couple though, so i don't need to think about it any more!). b12 deficiency is definitely dodgy stuff!
done the return trip 7 times so far! it's gone from exciting to boring to passed in the blink of an eye!
never had much trouble with that stuff till i got typhoid and nearly died in mexico in 95. i never quite recovered from that!
could be all of that. these things tend to accumulate as time goes by!
that's one benefit of getting older! ;-)
i could end up there too. but it will come as a surprise! ;-)
Three wanted to put up a mast. The mobile-phone using nimby objections came in thick and fast, with the usual cancer scares, causes migraines, we don't want it here, etc.
Anyway Three approaches the local amateur football club, saying we'll buy you to some new floodlights, if you'll let us put use your site.
Football club gets it's new floodlights, complete with the Three UMTS antennas fixes at the top of one of the towers. The nimbys didn't object to this.
The fact that people are more likely to litigate doesn't change the underlying law, it's just that the existing law is getting more exercise. On the basis of current evidence you couldn't convince a judge that any health damage is caused by these transmitters, and without provable damage there is no liability. If evidence of a health risk emerges then the networks will become liable for damage caused after the evidence is accepted, if they fail to address the danger, but not retroactively.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.