Of course, the use if microwave backhaul is far from industry wide. Lot's of fibre-optic and copper backhaul too.
New study warns of risks from emissions, suggests towers be kept away from homes
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
And if you sat beside a UHF transmitter for a few years, you'd be dead by now.
Folks really need to read the report before commenting.
All electronic transmission devices pose a potential danger, the point is to employ these devices in a safe manner. Heck toothpaste is something we let our kids use twice a day but if they swallow a tube of it, it could kill them. Even "safe" products can be dangerous if used or implemented incorrectly.
I would hope that Industry Canada (or relevant government body) has very specific regulations about transmission towers and their proximity to people. My sense is they do not.
Folks really need to read the report before commenting.
All electronic transmission devices pose a potential danger, the point is to employ these devices in a safe manner. Heck toothpaste is something we let our kids use twice a day but if they swallow a tube of it, it could kill them. Even "safe" products can be dangerous if used or implemented incorrectly.
I would hope that Industry Canada (or relevant government body) has very specific regulations about transmission towers and their proximity to people. My sense is they do not.
Well you'd be wrong.
"To protect the general public, Health Canada maintains its guideline document entitled Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz, which is commonly referred to as Safety Code 6. This document has been adopted by many organizations across Canada and is referred to in several regulations. Industry Canada has adopted this guideline for the purpose of protecting the general public. "
You can get the whole rundown here:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08792.html#s4
Joined
·
11,135 Posts
Judging from the last diagrams the answer is 0m at ground level. Hmm?
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwimages/Picture2.jpg/$file/Picture2.jpg
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwimages/Picture3.jpg/$file/Picture3.jpg
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwimages/Picture4.jpg/$file/Picture4.jpg
The safety regulations are not stated in terms of the proximity (distance)of people to sources of radio energy rather they deal with exposure to radio energy. Exposure levels are determined by calculations including such parameters as frequency, number of channels, antenna patterns and effective radiated power. The calculations show the locations, if any, where the level of exposure exceeds accepted standards. The calculations are 3 dimensional as antennas are typically on towers or building tops. Antennas usually have gain which in practical terms means the vertical radiation pattern of the antenna is compressed so more power goes out toward the horizon and much less goes to the ground. The power is focused much like the beam from a flashlight.
Each transmission site has its own considerations for exposure levels. Most towers don't have enough transmitters or ERP to create exposures at ground level in excess of the standards. Problems are more likely to occur on the roof tops of buildings from high power broadcast transmitters located on top of a nearby building. No single minimum distance rule will be appropriate because it will inevitably be based on worst case assumptions and needlessly prevent companies from locating transmission sites where they are needed to serve the public.
BTW, Industry Canada does not make the rules about acceptable levels of exposure, that's a health issue, but I believe they are responsible for ensuring they are followed.
Each transmission site has its own considerations for exposure levels. Most towers don't have enough transmitters or ERP to create exposures at ground level in excess of the standards. Problems are more likely to occur on the roof tops of buildings from high power broadcast transmitters located on top of a nearby building. No single minimum distance rule will be appropriate because it will inevitably be based on worst case assumptions and needlessly prevent companies from locating transmission sites where they are needed to serve the public.
BTW, Industry Canada does not make the rules about acceptable levels of exposure, that's a health issue, but I believe they are responsible for ensuring they are followed.
GeorgeMX, so are those regulations completely applicable to Cell phone towers?
Personally, as a Canadian citizen, I am just concerned that Canadians are being protected with a generous allowance. Cell phone towers on top of apartment buildings or office buildings seem to be in close proximity to people (as opposed to radio towers which are often well away from people) so I think its important that we are vigilant.
Personally, as a Canadian citizen, I am just concerned that Canadians are being protected with a generous allowance. Cell phone towers on top of apartment buildings or office buildings seem to be in close proximity to people (as opposed to radio towers which are often well away from people) so I think its important that we are vigilant.
As far ask I know they apply to all licensed radio base station sites which includes cellular. I don't know if they have exempted the micropower sites used indoors and on street corners. The ERP per channel on these sites is comparable to cell phone levels.
Broadcast services like TV, AM/FM Radio, all use much higher power levels than cell services and use very different antenna patterns. You can't make assumptions of RF exposure simply by proximity without knowing the antenna pattern. I think I stated this before, but I've stood at the bases of cell towers and couldn't barely get a signal because the antenna pattern straight down is near non-existant.
Critique from EMF&Health
From EMF&Health http://www.emfandhealth.com/EMF&Health Levitt & Lai.html:
The Levitt & Lai article is supposed to be an exposé of the myriad health risks from cell phone towers and WiFi. But in reality it is little more than a repackaging of an old set of arguments and studies from the discredited BioInitiative Report (BIR). The BIR was self published in 2007 by a well known group of alarmists to promote their claims about the harmful effects of EMF. See our web page on the BIR. Henry Lai is one of the authors of the BIR. The BIR has been roundly criticized by a number of mainstream scientific organizations such as the EMF-NET Committee of the European Union, the COMAR Committee of the IEEE, the Heath Council of the Netherlands, and several others.
Levitt & Lai's article revives this old material. Levitt is a free lance "science" journalist, not a scientist, who has written other anti EMF tracts. Henry Lai is the author of a number of papers on the biological effects of EMF which were rejected by mainstream scientists, because his results could not be replicated by other scientists. For example his papers of 1995 & 1996 which purported to find that EMF causes damage to DNA have been widely criticized. Other scientists have failed to reproduce his results (Malyapa et al. 1997 *1 and Lagroye et al. 2004 *2). The Levitt & Lai article includes Lai's own discredited study of DNA breaks, but it does not include the studies that refute it. This is true for the virtually all the studies cited in the article.
The fact that Levitt & Lai, who are American, arranged for the publication of this article by the National Research Council of Canada at this time, rather than in a scientific journal, is an indication of the likely purpose of their article, which is to influence the political debate on WiFi in Canada
From EMF&Health http://www.emfandhealth.com/EMF&Health Levitt & Lai.html:
The Levitt & Lai article is supposed to be an exposé of the myriad health risks from cell phone towers and WiFi. But in reality it is little more than a repackaging of an old set of arguments and studies from the discredited BioInitiative Report (BIR). The BIR was self published in 2007 by a well known group of alarmists to promote their claims about the harmful effects of EMF. See our web page on the BIR. Henry Lai is one of the authors of the BIR. The BIR has been roundly criticized by a number of mainstream scientific organizations such as the EMF-NET Committee of the European Union, the COMAR Committee of the IEEE, the Heath Council of the Netherlands, and several others.
Levitt & Lai's article revives this old material. Levitt is a free lance "science" journalist, not a scientist, who has written other anti EMF tracts. Henry Lai is the author of a number of papers on the biological effects of EMF which were rejected by mainstream scientists, because his results could not be replicated by other scientists. For example his papers of 1995 & 1996 which purported to find that EMF causes damage to DNA have been widely criticized. Other scientists have failed to reproduce his results (Malyapa et al. 1997 *1 and Lagroye et al. 2004 *2). The Levitt & Lai article includes Lai's own discredited study of DNA breaks, but it does not include the studies that refute it. This is true for the virtually all the studies cited in the article.
The fact that Levitt & Lai, who are American, arranged for the publication of this article by the National Research Council of Canada at this time, rather than in a scientific journal, is an indication of the likely purpose of their article, which is to influence the political debate on WiFi in Canada
"What is your proof the NRC Press is being manipulated or lacks credence?", said Jake.
Nobody implied anything of the sort. Lorne Trottier just wondered why two American alarmists would have such a questionable paper published in Canada at this time, with the HESA hearings going on down the street from the NRC...
http://www.cficanada.ca/blogs/entry/immediate_action_required_to_combat_wifi_pseudoscience/
Nobody implied anything of the sort. Lorne Trottier just wondered why two American alarmists would have such a questionable paper published in Canada at this time, with the HESA hearings going on down the street from the NRC...
http://www.cficanada.ca/blogs/entry/immediate_action_required_to_combat_wifi_pseudoscience/
Joined
·
11,135 Posts
To me this "anyone" was NRC Press. Since they accepted it ... what does that imply?
I know you are only reporting the news item I was just probing to see if that was a sentiment shared by other. I openly questioned NRC Press back on page one. That was before I knew who they were.
I didn't mean anything negative by that statement, just sharing the sentiment of jschall.
If you're doing research in EM and you're not Canadian, surely you have several other journals you'd like to be in before the NRC.
Scientists tend to publish for their peers (i.e. others doing similar work), and I hardly think the NRC readership is composed of these researchers' peers..
If you're doing research in EM and you're not Canadian, surely you have several other journals you'd like to be in before the NRC.
Scientists tend to publish for their peers (i.e. others doing similar work), and I hardly think the NRC readership is composed of these researchers' peers..
I read through the different test and results of the different bands.
Seemed like all the results were very random. Tons of words, but no information was provided about the test subjects. There were results from frogs, rabbits, humans, different animals. etc. It's like they did the tests on one of each test subject, very random, different ages, different past experiences, locations. Everything had a different result, and not all the results were negative (ie. Improved cognitive functions)
There were results from decades ago, and nothing was consistant. Towers aren't the only thing around you.
NRC are the the people that call and bug you to do a survey, and they don't care if you say no. They'll call you back on behalf of some company with a different name for thereselves next time.
Seemed like all the results were very random. Tons of words, but no information was provided about the test subjects. There were results from frogs, rabbits, humans, different animals. etc. It's like they did the tests on one of each test subject, very random, different ages, different past experiences, locations. Everything had a different result, and not all the results were negative (ie. Improved cognitive functions)
There were results from decades ago, and nothing was consistant. Towers aren't the only thing around you.
NRC are the the people that call and bug you to do a survey, and they don't care if you say no. They'll call you back on behalf of some company with a different name for thereselves next time.
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!