But what they should have said was "since all the available evidence says there is no risk, you can not legally be held liable for any damage which later arises".
Once the general medical opinion is that there is likely to be a specific risk from phone masts which does not exist in mobile phones in general, the question of liability would arise.
Geoff
Remember that whilst a million watt transmitter might put out enough energy to boil an egg, your 1 watt phone is never going to put out enough energy to make your head explode. Your brain uses about 25 watts itself even on standby.
Anyway, I think your sums are a bit misleading. Your brain might conceivably present enough solid angle to your mobile phone to absorb some significant fraction of your phone's output, but it isn't going to be more than 50%. At a rough guess I'd expect it to be nearer 20-30%, assuming your brain absorbs every microwave that hits it (which it won't or it'd be hell to get a signal). Let's ignore that though, as this proportion will cancel out later.
At 10 metres, assuming your brain presents 0.05 square metres (about half a square foot - quite an overestimate, probably, but maybe the right order of magnitude) and absorbs every microwave that hits it you'll get 4x10^-5 of the mast's output. Equivalent mast power to give the same dose as your mobile - 25 kW.
Do twiddle the numbers as much as you like, but I don't think you'll get up to needing a megawatt transmitter.
Of course, and it makes such *good* copy to boot!
Why the 30 seconds? Surely there is zero ionising radiation from a BTS; the frequency is too low, "E = h new" and all that.
Robert
surface area: 4pi x r^2
r=10 a=1256.63m^2
0.05m^2 / 1256.63m^2=0.00004 x power1 phone generates ~1 watt of power If you assume ~50 coverage yuo get half a watt.
To get half a watt of power at 10m would involve a power output of .5/.00004=12.5kW
HOWEVER what you're failing to realise is that the power from your phone is concentrated in a small area: the 1-2cm^2 around the ear, probably. That means that to get the same power-area ratio you need to jiggle the figures a bit:
0.0004m^2 / 1256.63m^2=3.18x10^-7To get half a watt of power at 10m would involve a power output of .5/3.18x10^-7, or 1.6MW.
OK?
Geoff
A mobile phone with a weak reception will INCREASE its output. Its near your head when you use it so its even more dangeorus than a mast.
Today I saw a mobile phone network contractors erecting a new transmitter.
It arrived on the back of a lorry and looked identical to the street light they were in the process of digging up.
In which case, people won't sight (sic) that one, will they?
If it turned out that network operators had definite proof of a significant health hazard and concealed it then they would be liable, but not otherwise I suspect.
Of course, living on-board a ship with constant thrum-thrum from the generators vibrating through the decks, bulkheads and deckheads along with the uncertainty of not knowing if you were going to be boarded by Police, Customs, River Authorities et.al and the motion of riding-to-anchor didn't have any effect ... .
On 26 Oct 2004, Tristán White wrote
You get rental if you own the actual property -- I think it's a similar figure -- but of course you get zilch compensation if you just live next to it.
finally, some evidence (that even the govt cant ignore) that reducing air exchange rates as per BRs is bad for your health.
NT
On 27 Oct 2004, Geoff Winkless wrote
Hmmmm...I'm not sure that relying on "general medical opinion" would be enough.
I think the available evidence does not say "there is no risk": it says, rather, "we can find no evidence of risk" -- which in legal liability terms is, I think, substantially different.
Moreover, AIUI, most TETRA base stations transmit in all time-slots, whether carrying traffic or not, with the result that the RF envelope is continuous. So those railing at 'masts' haven't even got their facts right, and if there is a problem (which I agree is most unlikely) it will again lie at the mobile station end.
Harvey Van Sickle wrote: ...snipped
With the scientific method it's impossible to prove a negative. So I'm afraid it will never be possible to scientifically prove that an Elephant will not fall on your head, only that it's unlikely.
That gives me an idea ... let's start a public panic about the risk of falling Elephants, we could siphon-off 10% of the Cancer research budget to try to prove that there was zero risk of being squashed by an Elephant. We (the researchers) would not be able to prove that it couldn't happen so would have research finding for ever more. Somebody might even design and sell a mouse-like device to detect dangerous Elephants.
And much of that ends up as heat. Perhaps we should be worrying about the effects of 25 watt human heads making quarter watt phones (GSM mobiles don't put out anything like one watt) overheat.
Nothing to do with the long hours they worked, the constant noise of the generators, the pitching of the moored ships, the smoking and boozing, the crap diet, the total lack of facilities for exercise...?
No, of course not: you have the results of the study of a control group of pirate DJs who thought they were doing the same, but the transmitter was switched off. You must have, or you'd not have posted such a comment.
Christian, I think. Never actually set foot inside it.
If there is enough money in it, anything can be "proved", let alone "found".
No, it isn't. But there are clearly laid out guidelines for what is considered to be a safe level of RF field for the public to be exposed to.
The church should be sure that the mobile bases are well within those limits. And they are.
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.