It seems that a group of namby-pamby NIMBYs down in Florida (naturally) are objecting to the notion of a local school district installing a cell phone tower on its property in order to raise revenue, citing the fear that the antenna will bake the little heads of the poor unsuspecting students. Depleted Cranium has a good article with some hard facts on how this is FUD, not that it'll matter that much.
While I remain open to the possibility that the 2 mW/cm² that one gets from using a cellphone next to one's head might be incrementally damaging in the long term, there is as of yet no convincing evidence that even exposure at that level is dangerous. The FCC's exposure studies (see FCC OET bulletins 56 and 65, required reading for any wireless licensee anyway) are based on whole-body models and may be inadequate for wavelengths shorter than 1 meter, but at this point we don't have any science that clearly indicates that the FCC's models are inadequate—just claims that they must be because "all the studies that say that cell phones are safe have been funded by cell phone companies".
I think in most cases the problem is that people think cell towers are ugly (and many of them are, although they are getting better at making them less so), but they think that argument won’t fly and so they rely on the FUD objection instead as that’s perceived as more likely to work. And besides, think of the children!
While I remain open to the possibility that the 2 mW/cm² that one gets from using a cellphone next to one's head might be incrementally damaging in the long term, there is as of yet no convincing evidence that even exposure at that level is dangerous. The FCC's exposure studies (see FCC OET bulletins 56 and 65, required reading for any wireless licensee anyway) are based on whole-body models and may be inadequate for wavelengths shorter than 1 meter, but at this point we don't have any science that clearly indicates that the FCC's models are inadequate—just claims that they must be because "all the studies that say that cell phones are safe have been funded by cell phone companies".
I think in most cases the problem is that people think cell towers are ugly (and many of them are, although they are getting better at making them less so), but they think that argument won’t fly and so they rely on the FUD objection instead as that’s perceived as more likely to work. And besides, think of the children!
Cell towers are ugly, I live near one and there is nothing pretty about it, plus the emissions, who knows what the outcome will be for us that live near by
ReplyDeleteI will be perfectly happy to have the cellphone companies install a tower in my back yard, as long as they let me put antennas on it too. I'm amused by the fact that a lot of the idiots complaining about RF exposure with no actual evidence probably make heavy use of tanning salons, which we KNOW cause skin cancer. All about appearances, eh?
ReplyDeleteCell towers are just too plain. There's not enough antennas on them. The emissions are lame and only in one band. And the outcome is nothing but a few soccer moms gossiping all day.
ReplyDeleteGimme a real tower or three, chock full of ham antennas on a dozen and a half bands. That's a work of beauty. Plenty of emissions from MHz to GHz. A great outcome.