IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: LTE and 4G Networks
Topic Summary:
Created On: 06 March 2012 09:23 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06 March 2012 09:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

I understand that the new 4G sites will output 70w of RF power.
What are the long term health implications of radiating this kind of power on such a large scale in schools and on the general public, let alone EMC issues? How has this been approved?
 16 March 2012 11:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

How kind of you all to point me in the right direction to finding the information I was looking for....NOT !

Thanks yet again to Amatuer radio and I wont mention any names but you know who you are

Thanks very much for your time

Kind Regard
 19 March 2012 04:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



normcall

Posts: 8130
Joined: 15 January 2005

I think you might find the answers in the distant past of the Home Office and the Radiocommunications Agency. I believe most of their material is now in the archives of the OFCOM web site. Try Kenley, where a lot of work on these frequencies was done.

-------------------------
Norman
 20 March 2012 06:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks Norman I will have a look at what you suggest



Kind Regards
 15 April 2012 08:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



zerocred

Posts: 15
Joined: 06 December 2006

RF is non-ionizing - that makes it quite different than ionizing radiation (like ultra violet/gamma rays/Xrays) which smashes up atoms. Compare with sunlight - at about 1000W/m^2 that is partially ionizing (UV) but we don't have regulations about exposure to it. See my other posts on this topic. All the safety levels are very low due to an excessive 'abundance of caution' and nothing to do with what you can feel or what can actually do you harm.

It also keeps a load of people in jobs in UN/ICNIRP/OFCOM going around schools making measurements confirming the level is billionths of already insiginficant low levels.
 16 April 2012 10:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks for your input Zerocred
I am beinging to realise that the wool is definately being pulled over our eyes regarding this subject!

I found this video by Dr Magda Havas entitled "Cell Tower Microwave Radiation Presentation" very interesting and some of the facts presented by her were very shocking to say the least!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...notation_755933


I am still reading up on this topic and now trying to find what the guidelines for radiation levels are here in the UK!

Any further input would be of much interest

Regards

Edited: 16 April 2012 at 11:17 AM by backinuk
 16 April 2012 10:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



haguetim

Posts: 109
Joined: 25 April 2006

Have a look at the Health Protection Agency web site, on there you will find the permitted radiation levels. Also when you look at there remember the radiation pattern of the antenna. Minimum field strength on the towers I have measured has always been underneath the tower, so if you have a mast on top of a school it's perfectly safe. There is a hell of a lot of scaremongering on this topic, and people making money out of peoples unfounded worries.
Just think, you may have 80W at the antenna tower, but you have > 5W at your ear when using the mobile..., people forget that as well.
 16 April 2012 11:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks Haguetim
unfortunately Dr Havas does not share your views with regards the lobes produced by antennas and the recommended safe levels of radiation if you stand under a mast!
I am not one to get scared by something I just try and understand it.
So far her information has been the most informative as this subject is one that if you do not understand RF and its effects then reading a document with a load of jargon will absolutely mean nothing to you!

Which is why most of the general public are not aware of the real dangers because it has been played down by remarks like yours!

She is suggesting that the safe levels recommended are actually not that safe and the studies that she presents as evidence seem to suggest as though there maybe something to have concern about.

However as we are all aware there are massive financial gains involved with this technology that these concerns maybe being overlooked or not presented in away that would harm its progression

What studies of an unbias nature have been undertaken here in the UK?

Why was the US Army report held back for so long? By the time it was released most of the Mobile infrastructure had already been put in place!

5w at your ear for long durations cannot be a good thing and I believe they recommended that you should use an ear phone or something of that nature to keep the phone away from you now!

Anyway still a lot more to learn.

Thanks for your input

Regards
 16 April 2012 02:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



haguetim

Posts: 109
Joined: 25 April 2006

I'm sorry you choose to dismiss 40 years experience..

Have a look at The Stewart Report for Mobile Phone safety and the following site for low frequency EMF.

http://emf.epri.com/
 16 April 2012 02:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks Haguetim

just that I have not overlooked anything!

Have a look at what independant experts in their field have to say about the subject!

http://www.bioinitiative.org/f...eport/index.htm


Why are the UK's saftey levels 100 times higher than even the US? who we all know we have a "special relationship" with

Regards

Edited: 16 April 2012 at 03:13 PM by backinuk
 16 April 2012 03:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



haguetim

Posts: 109
Joined: 25 April 2006

have a look at this document which shows the current recommendations for exposure to EMF's and is allied to ICNRP guidelines. You may find that our levels are now allied to most countries. There are also a list of references for you to follow up.
Just stay clear of the Daily Mail and anyone offering medallions to protect against EMF's

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPA...PAweb_C/1194947415497

And heres the ICNRP document

http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
 16 April 2012 05:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Niceone HagueTim
I will go over them as soon as get two minutes


Regards
 02 May 2012 04:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



zerocred

Posts: 15
Joined: 06 December 2006

This whole RF Safety thing is such a red herring...

Checkout the OFCOM measurement site - as I mentioned you can see they've been at it for years.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org....station-audits/


It's a classic case of being seen to be doing something regardless of how useless it is.

You have to ask yourself why do they bother? My guess is its cushier than stacking shelves in Tesco.

I welcome a representative from Ofcom to argue the toss of how vitally important these measurements are.
 02 May 2012 09:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks Zerocred
I am inclined to be in agreement with you at this stage still!

I didn't want to read what the ICNIRP, World Health Organisation (WHO) and all the government backed scientist had to say straight off as it would probably bias my train of thought.

The Bio report makes it clear and out lines what the problems are!
(Also we all know or at least should know, that the UN and WHO are just tools for the U.S and England when they want something implemented!)
The report shows that the levels of radiation from a mobile phone or cell tower that the government, advised by people like the IEEE and world health organisations (WHO) have deemed safe are actually not safe at all.

Sweden has recently dropped their exposure level requirements for the general public significantly!

I am not completely versed on this yet, however it would seem that "extremely low frequencies" (ELF's) can cause our immune systems to react in some way shape or form in response to these ELF's and as a result causes harm!!
The reasons the IEEE and WHO are not agreeing with the new evidence (well not really new because it has been a well known fact now for a number of years) is because they are still basing their levels on "non ionising radiation" which is basically a heating effect caused by the radiation!
However if you care to read the bio-initiative report you will see that something called "free radicals" & "melatonin" are affected which somehow changes your DNA to cause cancer!

I asked myself what it would mean in real terms to lower these levels especially with the knowledge that free radicals and melatonin may need zero tolerance levels? !!!!

Further to this I read in the report that the US Army had conducted tests on rats and found ELF's to be carcinogenic (cancer producing) however this report was held as classified for many years and not released until recently by which time much of the mobile phone infrastructure across the world is already in place!
In the report I read that they were also testing ELF' s as a weapon and recommended that It still be funded to continue the research to this day.!!! How many people are aware of the H.A.A.R.P project?

The site that HagueTim provided http://emf.epri.com/ when you take a closer look you will find that even though they are a non profit organisation their board of directors are CEO's of big and powerful power companies, so how inpartial they can be is beyond me!
Also the World health Organisation has an obligation to act on the publics behalf even if they think their is a slight chance of something un toward, however this is clearly not the case as they have not put their foot down to change things.

So getting back to my original question, what would the long term effects be? Well I cant see it being very good as an increase in power would mean the cells radiate further affecting more and more people!

I found a compay called Sarantel http://www.sarantel.com/
They manufacture
"revolutionary ceramic filtering antennas offering dramatically improved performance over existing antenna designs, resulting in a clearer signal, better range and a 90 per cent reduction in the amount of signal radiation absorbed by the body."

A 90% reduction ...wow ! is this why they are dragging their heels? Because they already have altenative plans in place!

Anyway these are very interesting yet worrying times!

Anymore info will be most welcome...........

Edited: 02 May 2012 at 09:48 PM by backinuk
 08 May 2012 12:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



haguetim

Posts: 109
Joined: 25 April 2006

It seems that whatever information is published by scientists you will disagree with, and antennas from Sarantel that reduce the amount of local radiation... well all that will happen is that the O/P ot the handset will increase it's power to compensate.

I suggest you buy a head to toe cape made out of RF shielding material as recommended by some sites, bond it to a ground plane and away you go..., oh and shut down all Radio, TV, Paging, emergency communications etc etc...
 08 May 2012 01:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks Haguetim for your input
I am not sure which part of the conversation I actually disagreed with the facts presented
only expressing a view that people supposed to be looking after our interestings are not as genuine as they would have you believe!

Yet again Haguetim you have shown yourself to be arrogant and forceful with your opinion, you have offered little other than contention!

I noticed that this was also the case in a very recent forum on RSGBTechs

What I have found in my experience is that people "who know" their stuff do not come across as you do at all

I suppose you are one of those that believe that Jesus is a white blond haired man?..............
A bit off topic I know, however no doubt you get the jist.

Regards
 08 May 2012 07:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



zerocred

Posts: 15
Joined: 06 December 2006

@back inuk - all these scientists are after is the next research grant, so of course they are not going to categorically say it is safe, or not, and watch teh funding tap close, they will say it requires more study, longer times, more detail, bigger samples and more money, "because the effects we are looking for are so insignificant that we can't find them - but it doesn't mean they're not there". Just how many blades of grass must they look at to conclude they're all grass coloured?

If it was really so dangerous we would have a pandemic of cancer or something on our hands, we don't. We probably have a pandemic of people with repetitive strain injury to their thumbs - with the occasionaly outbreak of broken bones due to iPhonitis (it happend a friend of mine with a Blackberry -tip don't look at phone going down stairs, aka watch where you are going). Future generations will have terrible shortsighteness too.

About these people who claim electro senstivitiy, I do not doubt they beleive they feel ill. If you think something is making you ill, then you will feel ill, 'it' must be causing it - right?

Well, no. Google for "hypnosis burn blister" - people's bodies react as if they have been burned even when they haven't, only because they think they have. The symptoms are real but the cause is not. Mass hystereia, panics all the same etc etc.

If you think there is a problem with the low levels of RF you are subjected to then radio engineering is the wrong business, better organic farming or deep sea diving or something safe from RF. If you feel unsure about RF safety that way its like a member of CND working on a polaris submarine, less radiation than on the surface but he feels every neutrino pass through his body.

"90% reduction antenna" that's a scam. I can reduce the RF leakage from your phone to zero and I only charge £29.99

RF engineers' children are always girls - that is true. Except for those that had boys.

It is very sad we are having this dicsussion on here. Its one thing if it is with the mis/uninformed general public but if "engineering and technology professionals" don't bother to read the ICNIRP output then this is epic FAIL.

Edited: 08 May 2012 at 08:09 PM by zerocred
 09 May 2012 09:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



haguetim

Posts: 109
Joined: 25 April 2006

OK, maybe I was a bit harsh but all of this has been gone over time after time.
If you want an alternative perspective have a look at this site:-

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/

As zerocred has said, I precis.., with the proliferation of RF emitters over the last 50 years or so, we would have an epidemic of cancers, which we just don't have..., even among the users of RF who are least likely to take precautions, Radio Hams. The Stewart report did look into this.
 09 May 2012 10:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



backinuk

Posts: 24
Joined: 29 May 2008

Thanks Zerocred for taking the trouble.
Yes I have lots to learn around the subject indeed!
Which is why I thought forums of this nature where intended for exactly this type of discussion.
If this type of subject cannot be rasied among people who do have a better understanding then I ask you where can it be rasied?
I would hate to think that anything that I was a part of may hurt anyone! As no doubt most engineers would.
I also thought the IET was supposed to be a place for up and coming engineers to acquire knowledge from their peers. Juding by the response I am getting It is being made quite clear that asking opposing view questions is out of the QUESTION!
If you create this culture then all you are creating are yes men surely? Engineers that are afraid to question anything for fear of being undermined and belittled? Or classed as trouble makers because they didn't act like sheep!
Or is this down to engineering ethics, is there some unwritten law that if you are involved in developing something for someone that if you come to realise that it may cause harm you are not supposed to say anything for fear of hurting your client, in turn hurting yourself?
The IET gets its funding from who?

Zerocred & Haguetim
They buried a collegue of mine not so long ago who died of cancer (RF engineer) non smoker.........
I hear what you say about pandemics, If they have not even started to look at what the experts in the bioreport are claiming, then their is not much chance that they will be monitoring this in health surveys anyway.
Cancers will be put down to smoking and known causes surely?

How much truth is there in the goalposts being moved by ICNIRP and the other government agencies making it harder to set a level for agreement on both sides?
Why are there not more independant experts invited to the meetings?
Why have Sweden dropped their levels significantly recently?

Learning loads and would appreciate input from anyone who has anymore information old or new.

Thanks for your time

Regards

Edited: 09 May 2012 at 10:32 AM by backinuk
 09 May 2012 10:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rjhaines.
rjhaines

Posts: 22
Joined: 14 May 2002

I have a general rule of "don't feed the trolls" (especially ones that throw a tantrum ten days after first posting because their fellow members haven't rushed off in their spare time to do their research for them!), but I feel I have to chip in.

We are supposed to be a "professional *learned* society" and, while I respect @backintheuk's quest for knowledge, I do fear that he has allowed himself to be led down the bunkum marginalised pseudo-science path of cherry-picked evidence and scare-mongering opinion-pieces, never mind hokum causes based on poor understandings of bio-medical effects. Citing risible conspiracy theories about the US and UK controlling the UN and WHO further reduces credibility, and accusing the independent experts of partiality sounds increasingly desperate. The downside of the Internet allowing everyone a voice is that *you* are then responsible for assessing their credibility - not all opinions are equally valid. A minority counter-view and debate is a sign of science working healthily and well, but if the consensus and balance of expert opinion and credible scientific research says there is no harm, it's incumbent on the minority seeking the paradigm shift (e.g. think Galileo, Newton, Einstein) to present compelling evidence. They haven't.

@haguetim has offered a slew of evidence in support of the "no harm" findings. I'll add more - both informal and referenced - but I acknowledge that people who have already made up and closed their minds to this are unlikely to be swayed regardless of the quality of the evidence.

Intuitively: mobile phones have been around for decades, and previous generations of mobile phone standard have used much higher power levels. Radio itself has been around for over a hundred years, and radio frequencies have been merrily passing through our bodies since we first climbed out of the primordial soup. Radio is pervasive.

A recent episode of the popular BBC1 science programme "Bang Goes The Theory" (Episode 5 of 8, Series 6 as screened on 16 April, on iPlayer currently at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01glqs8) presented a good depiction of this with the use of light to show received signal levels in a public area. We are all continuously bathed in radio energy of all frequencies from DC-to-daylight with no notable ill-effects. The "Bang Goes The Theory" episode even concluded with the summary that radio waves are not harmful.

As @zerocred notes, if there was some dangerous effect, we'd be seeing the effects already - think of the typical normal/Gaussian distribution: if mobile phones cause some terrible medical condition (I won't feed the trolls by randomly picking one for them to disagree with or to seize upon) then some people (heavy users, susceptible users, etc.) at the leading edge of that bell-shaped curve would be exhibiting it already. But, instead, to take cancer (solely because @backintheuk brought it up): "since the early 1990s, the incidence rates have remained fairly constant" [http://info.cancerresearchuk.o...r-incidence-statistics - in fact, you could even argue that the rates are in decline. And that's not even taking into account the improved detection and diagnosis, and improved longevity, that we have nowadays that will naturally cause that rate to increase.

However, such informal observations are unscientific, so, secondly, I refer you to peer-reviewed independent reports by the Health Protection Agency and by our own Institution of Engineering and Technology. All show that there is no evidence of harmful effects.

The official Health Protection Agency advice is here: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/R...cFields/MobilePhones/. It concludes (quoting the IEGMP Stewart Report, an *independent* report into the health effects of mobile phones) "This expert group concluded that there was no clear scientific evidence of harm to health from exposure to mobile phone signals."

The IET offers http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/index.cfm: "the balance of scientific evidence to date still does not indicate that harmful effects occur in humans due to low-level exposure to EMFs. This conclusion remains reassuringly the same as that reached in its previous position statements, the last being in May 2010, and has not been substantially altered by the peer-reviewed literature published in the past two years."

Other countries, such as New Zealand and the USA (to pick different arbitrary countries to Sweden) concur, and, at most, offer the same precautionary "just in case, one-in-a-million-chance" advice as the UK.

Even if we discount the profit-motive for perpetually recommending "further research" in such studies, there is always room for further studies and long-term monitoring of the effects of technologies, and any scientist worth his or her salt will keep an open mind to the possibility (no matter how slim) that future research may uncover something. Hence there are precautionary "good practice" steps that are recommended.

The precautionary exposure/SAR levels set by the various world organisations are (to quote Prof. Christopher Davis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland: there is an excellent series of lecture-excerpts by him available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...arI7HY&feature=relmfu) fifty times below the level at which there are behavioural changes - i.e. the level at which the test subject would say "ooh, that feels a bit warm" and move away - which is, in turn, orders of magnitude below the level at which any harm would be caused. For there to be a biological effect, there needs to be a physical and, in turn, chemical effect. Apart from spouting non-sequitur scary-sounding phrases such as "free radicals" and "melatonin", what peer-reviewed, scientific evidence is there for any such physical effect?

I reiterate - there has been *no* statistical evidence of any adverse effects from mobile phones. Furthermore, there is *no* known biomedical mechanism by which such adverse effects *could* occur.

I've presented both informal evidence (we're not keeling over from mobile phone use despite widespread use) and compelling scientific evidence based on vast epidemiological studies (Stewart Report, IET), along with a reasoned argument. But I fully expect to be dismissed as being an "expert" (a sad reflection on our society that such a label can be used pejoratively), as being forceful and arrogant in my presentation, and all the other /ad hominem/ attacks that @backintheuk has rather rudely made of the other contributors on this thread in his defence of his irrational position. But at least I've tried!

-------------------------
Eur Ing Dr. Russell J. Haines BEng(Hons) CEng FIET SMIEEE SMACM AMRI
IET Bristol Chair, College/Schools Liaison; Publicity; Acting Hon. Sec.
http://www.theiet.org/bristol, Twitter: @IETbristol
IET » Communications engineering » LTE and 4G Networks

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.