More antennas ‘means fewer base stations’

Mr walter camilleri

Sep 17th 2011, 22:19

There is an unconfirmed roumor that excessive eating of lampuki can cause one to catch lampukitis, which is roumored to have caused fishy deaths in certain areas of the North Sea. The Minister responsible should certify that eating lampuki is aabsolutely safe, or ban the catching or sale of lampuki.

A similar worrying roumour concerns the new high-tech plastic used in some of the new car models. It is said to contain a toxic chemical that can cause cancerous growths in the nether regions. Ban the sale of cars with plastic seat covers.

Walter Camilleri

Mario Camilleri

Sep 18th 2011, 10:37

@ Walter Camilleri,

And yes if something like plastics as you so mentioned that can cause health hazards like cancer, something that is man made not natural like Lampuki, SHOULD NOT only be removed off the shelves, banned and so forth but discontinued and recollected.

If on the other hand, for some legal reasoning the item can still be produced whether hazardous or not it should be followed by an advise and advertised as it can be hazardous to health. That way a person can opt whether to buy/use or not. And if an apparatus needs to be erected on a building, again that should carry a certificate of compliance and a guarantee that apart from the apparatus can be a health hazard, the neighbors would have the right to refuse such installations, no matter how much money the house holder involved will loose to benefit from that installation.

Let me remind you that most of the erected antennas are on new buildings such as apartments where the landlord is not a resident and schools, buildings that there is no owner responsible for since the apartments are sold to other people and the schools are government owned. But rest assured one thing, none of the contractors, speculators and high ranking personnel such as Government MPs, School Principals, Directors of Health/Environment and more have an antenna erected on their roof nor is there one installed within 200m from their residence. So that to me is worrying!!!

Mr Peter Korsten

Sep 18th 2011, 19:33

@Mario Camilleri

It's practically impossible to prove that it's safe. On the other hand, it should be very easy to prove it to be unsafe: billions of people have been using mobile phones for the last 15 years. However, so far I haven't seen any shred of evidence that links an increase in certain diseases to mobile phone use.

Does that mean they're safe? No; as I mentioned, that's nigh impossible to prove. But so far, evidence to the contrary has failed to materialise, despite these concerns being raised for about ten years now.

The same goes for base stations: there's no evidence that they harm the health. You can quote any number of half-baked internet sites and Facebook groups as you like, but they don't constitute evidence, nor does your insinuation that the amount you get paid to have a base station on your roof would have anything to do with risks.

Also, people have been living underneath much more powerful radio transmitters for decades, without ill effects. Different frequencies, indeed, but still.

It's evident that this concerns people, and it would be easy to dismiss it as a NIMBY-attitude. However, these concerns do not constitute proof, and given the masses of base stations that are around, something more solid should have come up by now.

Mario Camilleri

Sep 17th 2011, 20:24

L-argument mhux dak huwa, imma jekk dawn l-apparat hux ta' ħsara għas-saħħa!!
S'issa ħadd ma kkomferma li r-raġġi li joħorġu minn dawn l-apparat ma jagħmilx ħsara.
L-argument l-ieħor hu li jien nista nixtri jew ma nixtrix mobile għar-raġuni jekk jaġħmilx ħsara jew le. Imma li tiġi kumpanija, twaħħal apparat li jagħmel il-ħsara fuq skola, fuq knisja u għand il-ġarr tiegħi bla ma jien għandi dritt inwaqqaf dak li jkun qed iseħħ hija ħaġa oħra. Ukoll huwa l-fatt li ħadd mill-kumpaniji li qed iwaħħlu l-apparat ma jagħtu bil-miktub garanzija sew lil min jaċċetta l-apparat għandu u sew lil tal madwar li dak li qed jitwaħħal mhux ta' dannu għas-saħħa tal-abitanti.
U allura, sakemm dan ma jseħx, ir-raġuni hija li l-apparat huwa ta' dannu għas-saħħa tal-abitanti.
Nixtieq li kieku jkun hawn minn jerfa din ir-responsabilta u jagħti l-garanziji. B'hekk wieħed jista jibda jemmen l-kontra, imma altrimenti dan l-apparat jagħmel il-ħsara lill-abitanati. M'hemmx għalfejn la tkun tekniku u l-anqas xjentist. Sempliciement li tintrefa r-responsabilta minn minhu responsabbli. Mhux kulħadd ipeċċlaq fil-vojt u jistagħna minfuq il-poplu u mhux responsabbli tal-prodott li qed jiekol minnhu hu.

Mr Peter Murray

Sep 17th 2011, 14:26

What a load of absolute irrelevant nonsense analogies!The only sensible thing written.albeit provided as a form of ridicule attempt, was your "not yet heard " claim of hundreds of people dying as a result of using mobile phones or the equipment needed to receive reception thereof,as the exact same argument was put forward by the tobacco companies in the past.In any event ,would are lives cease to be "enriched" by the unavailability of mobile phone technology and how did we ever manage to function properly or survive without them?The ability for contacting people may be improved by these devices but at the expense of the more vital art(notice how this word is utilised as a description)of actual communication.Regrettably, as in all the other outstanding past cases,only time will truly tell.

Mario Camilleri

Sep 17th 2011, 18:44

@ Walter Camilleri,
Would you let your children reside under an antenna repeater?
Would you let them exposed in a surrounding were there is a concentration of radiation emitted from an antenna repeater?
If your answer is yes to both then you either have no children or you are not a responsible parent.
Living yourself in such an ambient is one thing, but letting and keeping your children exposed to such concentration is another.
Quote......"I have not yet heard of hundreds (let alone the thousands claims to be at risk) of brain-fried people cancer ridden citizens dying in our hospitals" what a load of crap!! Is this all you have???
How many do you know who died of brain cancer in Malta let alone all over the world?
Quote......"even water could be bad for you - you coiuld drown in it" and you compare water, sex, sleep, spaghetti and wine with radiation emissions. What a ridicule!!!

So, if as you said "luddites" are those who oppose any technological progress, then it's useless to ban cigarettes from pubs and restaurants, so we should let kids at early ages drink alcohol. Better yet we should introduce drugs in our daily routine since most of them keep us energetically active throughout the day and therefore we could produce more. We should contribute to warfare since that is always technologically progressing. Can't you think of something better than what you said earlier???

But let me remind you that the so called "luddites" as you so called us responsible parents, don't compare with what you said. Luddites were members of any of various bands of workers in England (1811–16) organized to destroy manufacturing machinery, under the belief that its use diminished employment. And this is what's happening today.

Quote...."Too many people seem to believe that if something is good (whether it's sex, sleep or spaghetti) it is going to harm you" only fools and have no brains would think that sex, spaghetti and wine would harm you. Never heard of somebody died after a meal of spaghetti carbonara complimented with a bottle of fine wine and for desert, well I would enjoy sex rather than a chocolate mouse or ice-cream!!!
Come on!!!

Joseph Camilleri

Sep 17th 2011, 14:02

Then the whole world lives in an oven... x'taghmel hux!

Pule' Carmel

Sep 17th 2011, 15:33

Just cook! I guess.

Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)

Sep 17th 2011, 20:34

@ Carm Pule':

What are your thoughts about penetration through roofs that are normally made of reinforced concrete? Does the steel mesh create a Faraday Cage effect? I already know that they do not constitute a F.C. but there must be some effect. I'm fairly confident that you've pondered this at some time or other.

Pule' Carmel

Sep 18th 2011, 02:58

Yes I did, I arranged for sheets of smal gauge chicken wire to be laid on the roof and the sides of a home and the roof was covered with a membreane. It cut down the radiation into the hose quite considerably.

Mr Tony Camilleri

Sep 18th 2011, 22:49

Pule' Carmel I am sure you know that aluminium foil would have been even better because the chicken mesh must be very small to reduce radiation while aluminium foil would provide total screening.
Regards Prof Pule'

Joseph Vassallo, (Bugibba)

Sep 19th 2011, 10:16

@ Carm Pule':

Thank you Carm; I figured as much, but I think even without the chicken wire, that might be the case.

If a concrete roof has a span wider than 12 feet, most of it would have "negative reinforcement" (double steel mesh) making that face reminiscent of a Faraday Cage (apart from the conductivity of the concrete itself).

I remember the old hotel at Golden Bay when I was a kid and when every boy (and his dog) had the essential "transistor radio" with him at the beach. That big tall building where we went to buy our drinks was "concrete framed" (therefore heavily reinforced with steel bars even on the vertical faces). It was impossible to get a radio signal inside the building and I think the lack of radio penetration was more to do with the steel content of the structure that with the low placement of the building below the cliff.

I still say we should all avoid constant absorption of microwaves from our cellular phones and from proximity to infrastructure antennae.

C. Spiteri

Sep 17th 2011, 12:39

Do you use a mobile phone? Do you know that the radiation from the phone is more harmful than that of the transmitting antenna? Do you know that the lower the number of transmitting antennas, the more the power of your mobile phone, and thus the more radiation that you can get from the use of the mobile phone?

Same goes for anything that is wireless - bluetooth, wireless links, wireless modems, computer mice, car keys etc, etc etc.

Let us keep everything in perspective and objective!

Mr P Pace Balzan

Sep 17th 2011, 13:41

@ C.Spiteri
I have just counted 10 misleading points in the 7 lines of your response to Daniel Woods.
Please do some research before making such statements.
For Example:
Do not compare a car key to a mobile phone mast.

C. Spiteri

Sep 17th 2011, 14:50

@ P Pace Balzan

Illuminate me more. Is the keyless technology radio frequency based? If yes, is a simple, single frequency or does it have harmonics? If yes, do these harmonics include microwave ones?

Oh please illuminate us.

Mr P Pace Balzan

Sep 17th 2011, 17:46

@C.Spiteri
No - You have to illuminate us/me.
On no account will I place all wireless technologies into one basket and rank them equal in terms of negative health effects.
Distance is a key factor in wireless technology since the effects of microwave radiation decreases with distance. This is the reason why there is what is know as the FORBIDDEN ZONE which is a 5+ meter diameter around Mobile Phone Masts which is blocked from public access.
.
Are there (C.Spiteri) forbidden zones around mobile phones or car keys? I believe not.
So please do not try to fool people.
.

C. Spiteri

Sep 17th 2011, 20:04

@ P Pace Balzan

Ah so now the argument has changed!!

I have never said that it is safe to go within the exclusion zone - this is the same reason why radio transmitters have an even bigger exclusion zone, especially in the case of short wave. But this also means that outside this zone (5m) the power is low and hence the potential damage is negligible.

While there are a number of peer reviewed scientific papers suggesting that extensive mobile phone use can induce temporary non thermal changes in cell cultures, there is not even one peer reviewed scientific paper that shows any affect from mobile phone antennas.

So my initial argument , that you have not even rebutted, i.e. that the lack of mobile phone antennas can produce a higher power from mobile phones, and as a consequence a higher risk, stands. Now that I have illuminated you, maybe you can do the same - but objectively and scientifically!

Mario Camilleri

Sep 17th 2011, 21:42

@ C Spiteri,

Qoute: "Same goes for anything that is wireless - bluetooth, wireless links, wireless modems, computer mice, car keys etc, etc etc."
Unquote: But these are not emitting microwave radiation continuously. The antennas are emitting radiation 24/7. On the other hand, you can switch off any of the fore mentioned apparatus therefore eliminating unnecessary emissions, but again the antennas and repeaters are on 24/7 and never dormant.
Furthermore if you so desire you can opt not to use any wireless apparatus and go for wired, but the antennas are there for always. Even if you would be lucky enough to sell your house and move elsewhere, eventually you'll end up either somewhere near another antenna or you might have a new one set up next door.

That's the perspective and objective!!

And as regards to your theory, the antenna repeaters are "amplifiers". Therefore they AMPLIFY the power transmitted, which in turn receive amplified transmitted waves form other AMPLIFIERS nearby and that's where the risk is high!!

Mr Tony Camilleri

Sep 18th 2011, 23:04

C. Spiteri what you forget is that the key frequency is much lower than the frequencies used for mobile phones and much less dangerous.

You also forgot that the second harmonic of the fundamental frequency will be down at least 20dBs meaning that it is roughly 128 times lower in power than the fundamental. The third and higher harmonics will be lower still.

The fundamental is usually about 1 milliwatt which is equivalent to or less than the local oscillator in your broadcast receiver.

Your bluetooth, wireless links, wireless modems, computer mice etc use about the same power.

As regards comparison between phones and base stations, yes, phones are very much nearer to your head than the base antennas, but while you use your mobile phone intermittently (hopefully), the base stations are on all the time and use higher power, so much so that the operators refuse to disclose the power they are using.

Granted that the power density reduces rapidly away from the base and any antenna including the one hidden in your mobile phone but people living near it will be subjected to a continuous dose of radiation.

So people near base would do well to screen their roofs and walls with aluminum foil and cover it with membrane so as not to be torn up and protect it from the weather.

So use your phone as little for as short a time as possible and keep it away from your head using extra earphone/mic adapters and don't enclose the mobile phone in your hand because you will reduce the signal going into the base station and its power will be automatically increased as it is instructed by the base station to do so.

Mr Tony Camilleri

Sep 18th 2011, 23:16

C. Spiteri first of all are you trying to tell us that the base station is not also a transmitter?

Secondly, the exclusion zone is dependent upon the frequency and the power used in the transmitter and the higher the frequency the greater is the exclusion zone.

Indeed, if you didn't know it C. Spiteri, the body absorbs most radiation from 30 to 300 MHz since the absorption and the voltage difference between different parts of the body depends upon the size of the body relative to the frequency concerned and such a wide frequency range is because of the different sized of persons starting from babies to grown ups.

However, the greatest danger is from microwave radiation. So much so that technicians are instructed never to point a dish antenna carrying power at persons and never to look down a waveguide carrying power.

So please don't try to tell us that short wave is the more dangerous without telling us that short wave transmitters use very high power such as 250 kilowatts, 500 kilowatts and even more into high gain antennas to beam their transmission to their particular target areas.